ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

UN Women (Funding)

Lisa Nandy: What criteria he plans to use to assess the strategic plan for UN Women when determining the funding to be allocated to it.

Andrew Mitchell: We recently reviewed the value for money of British taxpayers’ funding to all multilateral agencies through the multilateral aid review. We will use the same broad criteria to assess UN Women’s strategic plan.

Lisa Nandy: Currently, new funding pledges to UN Women for 2011 amount to just $55 million, less than 10% of the target set by member states in 2010. In order for this important initiative to succeed—and so that the UK can say it played its part in its success—will the Minister heed the calls of Voluntary Service Overseas and others to provide adequate funding urgently?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to flag up the importance of this new agency and the fact that it has strong cross-party support. The United Kingdom played a key role in its establishment. We have provided transitional funding, and when we see the strategic plan in June, we will then fund it. I have no doubt at all that, in consultation with other funding bodies, we will be able to play a very full part.

Duncan Hames: UN Women’s strategic plan is guided in part by millennium development goals 4 and 5. The Secretary of State has kindly just received from me Bradford-on-Avon Oxfam’s Mothers Matter card for mother’s day. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to restate to the House his Government’s commitment to working internationally to achieve MDGs 4 and 5 on maternal and child health?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the first international summit the Prime Minister attended after taking office following the election of the coalition Government, he flagged up the importance of MDGs 4 and 5 very directly. Oxfam’s campaign is an
	outstanding success. It is extremely important, and we will be following through on many of the aspects Oxfam has specifically mentioned when we have the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation replenishment conference in London on 13 June.

South Sudan

John Mann: What support his Department plans to give to development of the infrastructure of South Sudan in 2011-12.

Andrew Mitchell: Our main infrastructure investments in 2011-12 in southern Sudan are expected to be in roads in rural areas, primary and secondary schools, teacher training centres, health care centres and other facilities to reduce insecurity and increase access to basic services.

John Mann: Here we have a brand new country about to form—it will do so on 9 July—that wants to join the Commonwealth. Its people speak English, and it has great links with the United Kingdom. Should we not shift part of our budget in order to allow this new country to get developing fast?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we have focused very specifically on our support for the referendum. We are working very closely with President Mbeki on the issues of the border. We have had many discussions about the very points the hon. Gentleman mentions, most recently when I saw Salva Kiir on my visit just before Christmas, and we will be strongly supporting the new state in a whole series of different ways once it is set up.

Malcolm Bruce: What engagement does the Secretary of State have with the African Development Bank and the World Bank on infrastructure development for southern Sudan—which, as he says, is desperately needed—given that the UK is a major contributor to both those organisations? What will their commitment be, and how will the Department for International Development co-ordinate with them?

Andrew Mitchell: The Chairman of the departmental Select Committee is absolutely right to identify the crucial role that will be played by both the World Bank and the ADB. I recently had discussions on this very subject with Donald Kaberuka, the head of the ADB, in Addis Ababa at the African Union summit, and we will ensure that strong priority is given to infrastructure development. After all, this is a country with less than 28 km of tarmac roads.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has recently been a big increase in land purchase by foreign investors in South Sudan? Although foreign investment can, of course, be very beneficial in the right circumstances, land speculation threatens food supplies and price stability not just in South Sudan but globally. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that people in countries such as South Sudan do not become victims of land grabs by speculators?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman rightly recognises one of the challenges for South Sudan. There is an array of challenges, on all of which Britain and the international community will seek to assist Salva Kiir and his new Government. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that that country’s oil revenue gives it the opportunity between now and 2015 to make more progress on all these millennium development goals than any other country on earth. Britain will be playing its full part in trying to bring that about.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: At a meeting yesterday, a former Foreign Secretary of Sudan said that when the new Government take over in July the desperate need will be for government advice and training, as well as infrastructure. What plans do my right hon. Friend and his Department have to provide that advice and training?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: supporting democratic and accountable government will be at the heart of what we are trying to do in South Sudan. When I was in Juba to open the new British Government office there before Christmas, I was able to see some direct technical assistance that Britain is giving. As he says, we will need more of that.

Lesotho

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What estimate he has made of the likely change in the level of official development assistance to Lesotho following the closure of his Department’s bilateral aid programme in that country.

Stephen O'Brien: The DFID bilateral programme in Lesotho has delivered impressive results in, for example, reducing HIV prevalence in Lesotho’s important garment factories from 37% to 27% in just three years. Notwithstanding the planned closure of our bilateral aid programme, we will continue to provide some £10 million in aid each year to Lesotho through multilateral channels. Our assessments indicate that official development assistance to Lesotho is likely to grow substantially in the years ahead.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Churches in my constituency have a link with Lesotho that goes back many years. I recently met a delegation from Lesotho in Durham who told me of their grave concerns about the Government’s decision to stop bilateral aid. Would the Minister be willing to meet a delegation from Durham to discuss how Lesotho can continue to be supported by the international community?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, because I know that the Durham-Lesotho link has been an important, effective and long-standing connection of support between the two Anglican dioceses. The bilateral programme is very small, and many multilateral channels will remain available. We believe that they will grow, and that is where the future of Lesotho’s better development will be derived. I would be more than happy to meet a delegation of her constituents to explore how this approach can be additive, rather than negative, which is what she is worried about.

Tony Baldry: The UK will soon be spending 0.7% of GDP on international development. Following the recent review all of DFID’s money is committed, so if people want more money spent somewhere in the international development framework, it behoves them to explain where they want that money taken from in the DFID budget. We cannot have continuous requests for more and more spending unless people are prepared to acknowledge where they want spending reduced.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to bilateral programmes. Of course, opportunities are provided through challenge funds, not least the global poverty action fund, and other funds that are available for those with an interest to continue to apply to. That will allow them not least to influence the way in which the multilaterals deploy their resources to which we contribute.

UK Anti-corruption Champion

Catherine McKinnell: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the implications for development of his role as the UK’s international anti-corruption champion.

Stephen O'Brien: My right hon. Friends have had many discussions, including in specific meetings on this important role—yet another meeting will be held on it shortly. We agree about the importance of a cross-government champion. To be credible when working with our developing country partners in tackling corruption, it is vital that we have strong systems in place in the UK.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the news that the coalition is finally publishing guidance on the Bribery Act 2010, because delays to its publication have been very damaging to our reputation abroad. Given the devastating effects that corruption has on developing economies, can he confirm that the guidance has not been watered down to create loopholes for subsidiaries and joint ventures, and so the Act can be implemented, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, “rigorously, effectively and fairly”?

Stephen O'Brien: I am delighted to stand here as the guidance is being published, something that has happened pretty rapidly under this Government after we waited for 13 years for something similar from the previous Government. Far from being diluted, the guidance has taken all the representations into serious consideration and it is now something on which we can work. We very much look forward to seeing it in place as the bedrock on which we can build.

Harriet Harman: Openness and transparency are vital in the fight against corruption and in tackling exploitation of developing countries by global companies. It is a travesty that where there is massive wealth, such as in oil or minerals, local people do not benefit from it. The Government have said that they will support new European Union regulation to make companies disclose exactly how much they pay to the developing country’s Government
	for the right to extract natural resources, but what is needed is action. Will the Government take the lead on driving through the EU transparency regulation, and will he ensure that companies listed on the London stock exchange report the payments they make?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for raising this issue. As she knows, it is being addressed through the extractive industries transparency initiative on which I attended a meeting in Paris recently and to which there is now increasing commitment. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said on 20 February that we would work with our EU partners to look precisely at what we can do to examine the very obvious example that is coming from Dodd-Frank in America, but making sure that is done at an EU level.

Corruption

Helen Jones: What recent representations he has received on the effects of corruption on the economies of developing countries.

Greg Mulholland: What recent representations he has received on the effects of corruption on the economies of developing countries.

Alan Duncan: My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent meetings with non-governmental organisations and others who stress the importance of tackling corruption. Corruption threatens economic growth in developing countries, wastes resources and deters investment. The coalition Government will not tolerate corruption and will do their utmost in all their development programmes to eliminate it.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We welcome the publication of guidelines on the Bribery Act, for which organisations such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development have campaigned for some time, but will he tell the House how he expects the Act to be properly implemented given that the Serious Fraud Office is facing 50% cuts and many of its members have resigned, including the head of anti-corruption? What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about this?

Alan Duncan: I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that that is primarily a matter for the Treasury rather than the Department for International Development. We believe that corruption is bad for development, bad for poor people and bad for business, and today’s written ministerial statement lays out concrete guidance for the implementation of the Bribery Act to which we look forward.

Greg Mulholland: I, too, welcome the publication of the guidelines on the Bribery Act and wish to pay tribute to the leadership and personal commitment of the Secretary of State on this issue. However, I want to raise the issue of country-by-country reporting. The Government have said they are committed to that but that they will seek to do it through the EU. Can the
	Minister say how the UK will provide the leadership to ensure that we have the same system as that in the United States?

Alan Duncan: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been driving this issue very hard and DFID fully supports a process that is designed to reach agreement at EU level. We want such legislation to require, for example, extractive industries to disclose all their payments to the host Government. That is a very important step and the impact of such measures is greatest when applied to the widest range of countries.

Rushanara Ali: We all agree that tackling corruption is vital to ensuring that development delivers for the people who need it most. As the Government are finally publishing the guidelines on the Bribery Act, may I press the Minister again to assure us that the guidelines will not water down that important legislation?

Alan Duncan: On the contrary, the guidelines are very strict as the hon. Lady will see when she reads the written ministerial statement that is being published today.

World Bank Spring Meetings

David Burrowes: What objectives he has set for the outcomes for his Department’s policies of the World Bank spring meetings.

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will personally attend the spring meetings. Our objective is, on the back of our support for the recent funding round for the World Bank’s operations in poor countries, to take forward the outcome of our multilateral aid review and to ensure that the World Bank delivers more effectively in fragile and conflict-affected countries.

David Burrowes: I thank the Minister for that reply. The president of the World Bank has said:
	“If you think about almost any poverty and development issue, you will find water at the center of it.”
	Last week, I, together with the Secretary of State and constituents, joined Tearfund and Water Aid’s Westminster walk for water to highlight the lack of access of hundreds of millions of people to clean water and basic sanitation. Will the Minister stand on the shoulders of those who have walked for this great cause?

Alan Duncan: It is often a great advantage for me to stand on someone’s shoulders! Much of the international effort on water and sanitation is indeed led by the World Bank which, over the past 10 years, has provided 113 million people with access to an improved water source, and 5.8 million with improved sanitation facilities. With our support and that of others, the World Bank will over the next three years provide up to 44 million people with improved access to water sources. As part of our partnership, we will press it to be even more effective in what it does.

Mr Speaker: As the Minister will understand, I know his feelings very well.

India

Caroline Dinenage: What plans he has for future levels of development aid to India.

Andrew Mitchell: I have frozen the India programme at current levels until 2015. Working closely with the Government of India, we will target our support on three of the poorest states. Our programme will change to reflect the importance of the role of the private sector.

Caroline Dinenage: Despite the undoubted poverty in India, the Indian Government have nuclear weapons, a space programme and their own programme for foreign aid. What can we do to encourage the Indian Government to spend more money on the things that they should spend money on, rather than on the things that they want?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to ask whether India has reached the point where we should end our development programme. Our judgment is that we are not there yet. As she said, India has more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. It also has the biggest Government-led pro-poor, anti-poverty programme anywhere in the world, and through our programme, we are strongly encouraging more of the same.

Anas Sarwar: Will the Secretary of State outline what representations he has received from the Indian Government about his plans to spend 50% of DFID money on the private sector? Is that an aspiration only for India, or is it for other developing countries too?

Andrew Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the nature of development is to try to move countries off welfare development on to pro-poor, private sector investment, as that is something that helps poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. The decisions on the Indian programme were made in close consultation with the Indian Government, and take account of our priorities and theirs as well.

Global Action Poverty Fund

Fiona Bruce: How many organisations have (a) applied for and (b) been granted funds from his Department's global action poverty fund.

Stephen O'Brien: In the first round, 366 eligible applications for funding were received for the impact and innovation windows of the global poverty action fund. Announcements on the first successful projects will be made next month.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for his reply. Many small charities make a tremendous difference in developing countries, often with limited funding. What can be done to publicise the excellent opportunities for them to apply to the global poverty action fund?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an opportunity for many small UK-based organisations that often struggle to access DFID funding. The best thing to do is to go to the DFID website, but I would also would urge her and Members across the House to publicise through their constituency communications the fact that this is a real opportunity for their local charities to make a sensible application of that sort.

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations in the Chamber. I remind colleagues that we are about to discuss humanitarian aid to the people of Libya.

Libya (Humanitarian Aid)

Ann Clwyd: What humanitarian aid his Department is providing to the people of Libya.

Andrew Mitchell: We have provided funding for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has sent in three medical teams, medical supplies to treat 3,000 people affected by fighting, and essential relief items for up to 100,000 of the most vulnerable.

Ann Clwyd: As the Minister knows, a team from Amnesty International has been in Libya for the past month, and it has found evidence of hundreds of missing and detained people. Given Gaddafi’s track record of extreme cruelty and torture, will he try to ensure that, at the very least, the ICRC has access to those detained people, so that news can be given to their families and they can have some contact with them?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Lady, who rightly always champions these issues, is entirely correct, which is why we and the United Nations have called strongly for unfettered access for humanitarian agencies. We continue to call for that access to be given throughout Libya.

Martin Horwood: The potential humanitarian crisis in Libya is one of those that should be influenced by the important report by Lord Ashdown on our response to humanitarian crises. I know that the Secretary of State welcomed the publication of that review. Can he give us some idea of the time scale for a Government response to this important piece of work?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. Lord Ashdown’s review of the way Britain conducts its humanitarian and emergency relief is outstanding. The Government will now consult and take six weeks to consider all the implications of that, and then report back to the House.

Naomi Long: Many sub-Saharan Africans work as migrant workers in Libya and do not have the resources or the opportunity to be repatriated. One of my constituents, who works with the Somali community in Belfast, has contacted me as members of that community are very concerned about their relatives. What are the international community and our Government doing to try to stem that aspect of the humanitarian crisis?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is right to identify the migrant communities leaving Libya, especially through Tunisia, as particularly vulnerable. That is why Britain, along with others, has flown tens of thousands of them home to their countries and families. Britain has been involved in repatriating more than 12,500.

Humanitarian Assistance (Libyan Borders)

David Morris: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation on Libya’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.

Jo Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation on Libya’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.

Andrew Mitchell: More than 350,000 people have crossed the Libyan borders since the crisis began. Early action by Britain and others has ensured that a logistical crisis has not, so far at least, developed into a humanitarian emergency.

David Morris: I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done so far on the issue. Obviously, it is not for me to remind him that the eyes of the world are on that region, and that we must get it right for the people there.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Britain was one of the first countries to provide blankets and tents for those who were caught out in the open on the borders. Following that, as I said in answer to the previous question, we were at the forefront of the international community in providing flights to repatriate migrant workers from both borders.

Jo Johnson: One of the biggest challenges facing Egypt’s transition to democracy is the fragile state of its economy, with capital rapidly leaving the country. Can the Secretary of State please say what he will do to stop the additional pressure on the Egyptian economy from the influx of refugees from Libya, which is draining it of remittances and pushing up already high unemployment?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to identify a most important issue. I have made clear Britain’s significant contribution to ensuring that migrants are flown home. On the other points that he mentioned, some of that is a matter for the Paris Club of creditors, the other international financial institutions and the significant funding available from the European Union through the neighbourhood funds.

Yemen

Keith Vaz: What discussions he has had with his EU and UN counterparts on the development implications of the state of emergency in Yemen.

Alan Duncan: We are in close contact with EU and UN counterparts. Recent instability is limiting the ability of DFID and other donors to run
	development programmes in Yemen. DFID is continuing to support the social fund for development which helps low-income groups to secure basic services such as health, education and water. We are also supporting humanitarian contingency plans. We do not provide any money directly to the Government of Yemen.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, a state of emergency was declared in Yemen last week. As it remains one of the poorest countries on earth, it is essential that the excellent work that has been undertaken by the Government through the development programme continues. Can the Minister ensure that, subject to the security of people there, this work will continue?

Alan Duncan: We share the right hon. Gentleman’s objectives in trying to deliver assistance wherever we possibly can, which we are continuing to do through the social fund for development, which is not Government-run. We have, however, had to withdraw our DFID staff from Sana’a given the security situation, but we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to help the people of Yemen once the security position and the political position become clearer and appropriate.

Tax Avoidance (UK Companies)

Katy Clark: What recent representations he has received on the effect on the economies of developing countries of the tax avoidance practices of UK companies.

Stephen O'Brien: Ministers discuss taxation and development with various parties, with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury most recently meeting Christian Aid on 8 March. Discussions on protecting developing countries’ tax bases also take place in the OECD tax and development task force and the G20 development working group.

Katy Clark: The Minister will be aware that developing countries lose more through the tax avoidance of multinationals than they receive in aid each year. The Business Secretary has in the past supported country-by-country reporting of both profits and tax paid. Is that something the Minister would consider?

Stephen O'Brien: I can certainly confirm that we expect all companies and individuals to pay the tax they owe in the countries where it falls due. There is a lot of work now going on, particularly with the G20 development action plan and the global forum on tax transparency, precisely to address the issues that the hon. Lady rightly highlights, and which we must all seek to find the most effective ways of tackling.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jackie Doyle-Price: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 March.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Major Matthew Collins and Lance Sergeant Mark Burgan from 1st Battalion the Irish Guards. They died in Afghanistan last Wednesday after their vehicle was caught in a blast from an improvised explosive device. They were both hugely respected, passionate and dedicated soldiers, and they will be greatly missed. Our thoughts and deepest condolences should be with their families, friends and colleagues.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and further to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I pay tribute to our fallen heroes, and I am sure that I speak for many in the House when I say that we have to remember the debts we owe our brave armed forces, particularly at this time.
	Is the Prime Minister aware that 14 Opposition Members signed an early-day motion congratulating UK Uncut, despite that organisation’s refusal to condemn Saturday’s violence? Will he join me in urging those Members to withdraw their names?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. First of all, we should be absolutely clear that the scenes in central London of property, shops, banks and livelihoods being destroyed were completely and utterly unacceptable. The police should have our full support for the way they policed the march and the action they took. I think that it is important for people to understand that UK Uncut refused to condemn this violence and Opposition Members should remove their names from the early-day motion.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Major Matthew Collins and Lance Sergeant Mark Burgan, who died in Afghanistan. They showed enormous bravery and courage, and all our thoughts are with their family and friends.
	May I start by asking the Prime Minister about the ongoing situation in Libya? In particular, will he tell the House what his policy is on arming the rebels?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Before starting, perhaps on behalf of everyone in the House, I congratulate him and Justine on the happy news of their forthcoming wedding and, along with everyone, wish them a long and happy life together.
	I can report that the situation on the ground is extremely fluid. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the ceasefire is still being breached, and it is absolutely right that we keep up our pressure under UN Security Council resolution 1973. I can confirm to the House that the coalition took action yesterday against regime forces harassing civilian vessels trying to get into Misrata. Yesterday and overnight the RAF flew 24 sorties, and Tornado aircraft destroyed artillery and an armoured fighting vehicle near Sirte.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about arming the rebels. I have said before in this House that we must do everything to comply with both Security Council resolutions. As I told the House, the legal position is clear—the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of Libya—but at the same time UNSCR 1973 allows “all necessary
	measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas, and our view is that that would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. As I have told the House before, we do not rule it out, but we have not taken the decision to do so.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply and am sure that the matter will be explored further in the Foreign Secretary’s statement at 12.30 pm. I also thank him, and indeed all Members, for their kind wishes on my forthcoming wedding, which I am very much looking forward to. I might have to come to him in the next couple of months for advice, because I know that he knows how to organise memorable stag nights.
	Let me turn to a different issue: tuition fees. The Prime Minister said that universities will charge £9,000 in tuition fees only in exceptional circumstances. How many of the 23 universities that have announced their plans are planning to charge £9,000?

David Cameron: I am sure that there will be a free exchange of advice. When I was Leader of the Opposition, I would have done anything for a honeymoon, and the right hon. Gentleman probably feels the same way. However, we wish him well.
	On tuition fees, the point about the £9,000 is well made. Universities can charge £9,000 only if they go through a number of steps to prove that they really are improving access to universities. I do not have the figures available, but I am very happy to give them to him when I do.

Edward Miliband: This is an important point, because when the Prime Minister was selling his tuition fees policy he reassured people that there would be a basic threshold of £6,000, but that “in exceptional circumstances” some universities would be allowed to charge £9,000. Of the 23 universities that have announced their fees, 18—more than 80%—plan to charge £9,000. It is not the exception; it is the rule. I am afraid—not for the first time—that this policy has not been implemented competently. The next problem he faces with this policy is that it will cost the Treasury more money to fund the loans. Will he guarantee that that money will not come from university budgets or through a reduction in student numbers?

David Cameron: It is worth reminding the House that university tuition fees were first introduced by the Labour party. There are two important points about this threshold. First, each university will have to spend £900 per place on access requirements. Secondly, the Office for Fair Access will decide whether universities can go to that £9,000 threshold. Very tough rules have been published and placed in the House for people to see. On the additional money that will go into higher education, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: because of the system we are introducing, we will be spending more overall on universities. However, the key thing is that because of the reductions in spending we are having to make elsewhere, this is the only way to guarantee that we have well-funded universities, well-stocked libraries, well-paid lecturers and good universities to take on the world.

Edward Miliband: I asked a very simple question: where will the money come from, given that the Government have miscalculated the level of tuition fees? Universities up and down the country are worried that the Prime Minister does not think that an 80% cut in the teaching budget is enough and that he will come back for more.
	Policing is another area of public services that I do not think the Government are getting quite right. The police Minister was asked eight times on the radio this morning whether the number of front-line police officers would fall. May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be fewer front-line police officers in the years ahead?

David Cameron: According to Home Office statistics, if all forces achieve the current best average for visibility and availability, it would increase the number of officers available by 8,000.

Edward Miliband: I do not think that people will understand what that answer was supposed to mean. The Prime Minister should listen to the chief inspector of Lancashire police:
	“We cannot leave the front line untouched”.
	That is because of the scale of the cuts. Two thousand police officers are being forced out under the A19 rules. Sergeant Dave Hewitt:
	“'I will be walking away from the force, unfortunately not through choice… As far as I’m concerned I’m still young and I wanted to continue being a neighbourhood sergeant.”
	That sounds like a front-line police officer to me. May I ask the Prime Minister the same question? Does he expect there to be fewer front-line police officers in the years ahead? Yes or no?

David Cameron: There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers. Both parties agree that the police budget has to be cut. I heard the shadow Chancellor on the Marr programme say that
	“we would have made cuts to policing”.
	The Labour party would have cut policing, and we have to do so, so the question is: how do we make those cuts? We say that we have to freeze police pay for two years, reform police allowances and cut their paperwork. The Labour party opposes all those things, so it would have to make deeper cuts in police numbers. That is the case.

Edward Miliband: It is very simple: we proposed 12% cuts in the policing budget; the Prime Minister is proposing 20% cuts. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said that if we go beyond 12%, that is likely to lead to cuts in front-line officers, which is exactly what is happening up and down this country. The truth is that he used to claim that the Conservatives were the party of law and order, but now he is cutting the number of police officers up and down the country. It is the wrong choice for the police, the wrong choice for communities and the wrong choice for the country as well.

David Cameron: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The difference between a 12% reduction and what we are proposing is the freeze in police pay and the reform of police allowances, which he refuses to support. Has anyone seen a more ridiculous spectacle than the right hon. Gentleman marching against the cuts that his Government caused? I know Martin Luther King said he had a dream—I think it is time the right hon. Gentleman woke up.

Sarah Newton: From his visits to Cornwall, the Prime Minister will appreciate the high regard for the coastguard service there and around the UK. I am reassured that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has said that the current modernisation proposals are not a done deal. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is very important to get the plans right?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She is a Cornish MP, and I am sure that she and the whole of the House would want me to say how much we feel for our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who lost her husband in a tragic fishing accident. That demonstrates the extraordinary risks that people in coastal communities take, and our hearts should go out to her and her family.
	We want to make changes only if they improve the coastguard support that people in fishing communities and elsewhere get. That is what the reform is about: trying to ensure that the real impetus is on the front line. If that is not the case, we will obviously have to reconsider the reforms, and that is why they are being reviewed. What I would say to everyone who cares about this issue is: work with us to make sure we get the maximum amount in those lifeboats and other ways of helping our fishing and other communities.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge the serious concerns that have been raised about the adverse implications and complications for cancer patients under the proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill of replacing disability living allowance with personal independence payments? Will he therefore investigate with Ministers the case for creating a straightforward cancer care and support allowance, which would be available to those who have been diagnosed with cancer and are either undergoing or awaiting treatment?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady asks an important question. We will look carefully, as the Government medical adviser is, at DLA and its interaction with people with cancer. However, I think that everyone, in all parts of the House, should recognise that DLA does need reform. The fact is that there are 130,000 people on DLA who have not had a claim revised at all since the benefit was introduced in 1992. There are 750,000 people who have had the same claim for 10 years and no contact from the Department. There are 21,000 people of working age getting DLA because they are on drink or drugs, so reform really is necessary, but making sure that we assess people with cancer properly is definitely part of that reform.

Dan Byles: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what appears to have been a successful London conference on Libya? What measures are being taken to ensure that we can expand the coalition of countries taking part in action to include regional players such as Qatar and others, which is vital if we are to maintain regional support?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his question: it was a successful conference yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make
	a statement about it later. There were more than 40 delegations, widespread representation from the Islamic world and a common message from everyone at the conference about broadening and deepening the alliance, and enforcing UN Security Council resolution 1973. There was also new support, with equipment, including from the Swedes, who are making eight aircraft available. We are on track, and there is very strong support for what is being done, but we need to keep up the support, particularly in the Arab world.

Ian Austin: Families who have lost their jobs have been able to apply for emergency loans to tide them over, so why, when unemployment is at a 17-year high and is predicted to get worse, does information leaked to me show that the Government plan to cut the fund tomorrow, and why, just like last week’s cuts to winter fuel payments, was this not announced in the Budget?

David Cameron: We are putting in place the biggest and boldest programme since the great depression to help unemployed people. That is what the Work programme is all about, and the hon. Gentleman should work with us to make sure that it can help everyone, including those in his constituency.

Peter Aldous: Taking into account the high levels of deprivation in Lowestoft in my constituency, and in Great Yarmouth, coupled with the unrivalled potential of the East Anglian coast for creating jobs in the offshore energy sector, does the Prime Minister agree that those prospects would be significantly boosted by the creation of an enterprise zone?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very articulate case for an enterprise zone. I am delighted that we have introduced 21 enterprise zones, and clearly there is a case that colleagues can make for more. There are real strengths in his area in terms of green-tech jobs, which I know he supports, and I am sure that the Chancellor will have heard his message.

Nigel Dodds: Dozens of families in my constituency were put out of their homes overnight and remain out of their homes as a result of terrorist activity, the latest in a long line of such incidents in Northern Ireland recently. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that terrorist activity? As well as supporting the police and the Army with resources, does he agree that, as we approach the Assembly elections in a few weeks’ time and mark the first full term of uninterrupted, stable devolution in Northern Ireland for generations, the best answer that we can give to such people is to reject them, reject their policies, reject their wanting to drag us back to the past and to keep Northern Ireland moving forward?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with support from all parts of the House for what he says—with both points that he makes. First, we have to be eternally vigilant against terrorists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere; we should do that, and he knows that the British Government will give every support that they can to the Northern Ireland Executive. Secondly, the best proof of success, and that there is a non-violent
	path, is to show the success of our democratic institutions, which he, his colleagues and all parties in Northern Ireland are doing.

Greg Mulholland: Yesterday, councillors on the Yorkshire and the Humber joint health overview and scrutiny committee were told by senior doctors that, if Leeds loses its children’s heart surgery unit, ambulance transfers will be unsafe and could prove fatal. Given that the report into the review of children’s heart units—commissioned by the previous Government, of course—contains factual errors, and given that there is a question over the impartiality of the board that made the final recommendations, will the Prime Minister now agree to halt the process? If not, does he think that the only option is judicial review?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to speak up for his constituency, which could be affected by that review, as indeed could mine. We want to make sure that the review is as transparent as possible and involved and engaged with parents and with everyone in communities. There are many times, however, when rather bogus arguments are put forward for specialisation in the NHS, but, in a really complicated case such as child heart surgery, there are cases for specialisation, and, as passionately as we all want to defend our own hospitals, we have to think about clinical safety and what is best for children. He is absolutely right to speak up for his hospital, as I am for the one that serves my constituency, but we have to have some understanding about the complexity of what we are dealing with.

Geraint Davies: Does the Prime Minister understand that unilaterally setting the minimum price for carbon in Britain will drive out inward investors such as Tata Steel in Swansea? Carbon trading by its very nature requires a common price, not a unilateral one, so will he suspend that price and send his Chancellor into the European Union to negotiate a common price and ensure that we have a level playing field for inward investment?

David Cameron: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, but I do not agree with him. I think the steps taken in the Budget are right, and we should judge companies such as Tata by the investments that they make. I have been hugely heartened by the fact that Tata is putting more investment into the UK. Its Redcar plant closed under the previous Government, but it is going to reopen in part because of the investment that Tata is making. I will of course listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that Ratan Tata knows a bit more about his business than he does.

David Burrowes: My constituent Geoff Jacobs is in Parliament for The Prostate Cancer Charity’s action day to remind us that prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. With only three out of 10 men being aware of the prostate-specific antigen blood test, and with 10,000 men each year dying of the disease, does the Prime Minister have a dream—of better outcomes for the increasing investment in the NHS?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. He is right that it is a dream we can have, but the fact that prostate cancer is such a massive killer is a nightmare for many families and many people in this country, and we really do need to do something about it. That means better early diagnosis, better testing, and better access to drugs. All those things are contained in our plans for the NHS.

Alasdair McDonnell: The Prime Minister will be aware of the large number of women across the UK, including a number in my constituency, who are in their late 50s—58 or 59—and on low incomes, and he will be aware that speeding up the equalisation of the state pension age will affect some 2.9 million of them, with many having to wait two years and, as a result, lose up to £10,000. These are usually people on low incomes and in marginalised economies. Does the Prime Minister intend to put in place any measures to cushion the severe effects on these people on low incomes and their stretched financial circumstances?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, the equalisation of the pension age does ask people to work for longer in their lives, and it is a big change. But I think that because people are living longer, it is right that we make this change to make sure we can have a good, strong and affordable pension system. The biggest thing we are doing is linking the pension to earnings rather than prices, which means that someone retiring today will be getting £15,000 more over the next period than they would have done under the old plans—so one is partly to pay for the other.

Robert Halfon: The last Government left us with one in five young people unemployed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new university technical colleges will help to transform the lives of young people and are a matter of social justice as well as economic efficiency? Will he support Lord Baker in supporting the strong bid of Harlow college to have a UTC so that Harlow—

Mr Speaker: Order. We get the gist of it.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for Harlow and to speak up for university technical colleges, which I think are going to be a great innovation in our country. I pay tribute to Lord Baker for the work he is doing, and to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary and to the Chancellor, who put extra money in the Budget so that 21 of these colleges can open in our country, including, I hope, in Harlow.

Christopher Leslie: The coalition agreement promised that the NHS budget would increase in real terms each year. Since the spending review, inflation has spiralled very high and we now face a real-terms cut of £1 billion for the NHS. What is the Prime Minister going to do about that?

David Cameron: We said that NHS spending would increase in real terms each year, and it will.

David Amess: As we approach Good Friday, we might reflect on the role of Pontius Pilate. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he would never address crowds on Hyde park corner protesting about reductions in spending if he had been responsible for the economic mess that was the cause of the reductions in the first place?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Far from standing on the shoulders of the suffragettes, or whatever nonsense we heard at the weekend, the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is sitting in a great big pool of debt that was his creation, and he has got absolutely no idea what to do about it.

Helen Jones: In 2009, the Prime Minister promised families with disabled children, in his own words,
	“a crack team of medical experts—doctor, nurse, physio—”
	to
	“act as a one-stop-shop to assess families and get them the help they need.”
	Can he tell the House how many of these teams have been set up?

David Cameron: What I can tell the hon. Lady is that it was very much something based on my own experience of having repeated assessments when you are trying to get help, benefits and social work, and in the special educational needs Green Paper that precise idea is rapidly becoming Government policy.

Caroline Dinenage: Despite some unhelpful local party political mischief-making about the future of our valuable Sure Start services, will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming Hampshire county council’s proposals to protect front-line Sure Start services while saving public money by cutting back-office costs?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key thing is that the head of Sure Start services has herself said that there is money available in the Budget to keep Sure Start open. That money is not being reduced.

Chris Williamson: On 24 March last year, six weeks before the general election, the Derby Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister had accused me of distributing inaccurate information about Conservative plans for the winter fuel payment. It turns out that I was right and he was wrong, so, unless he is going to overrule his Chancellor, will he take this opportunity to apologise to the millions of pensioners who rely on the winter fuel allowance and to me for his unfair censure?

David Cameron: I cannot believe that I accused the hon. Gentleman of anything because I had absolutely no idea who he was. While we are at it, we promised that we would keep the winter fuel payments and we have kept the winter fuel payments. We promised that we would keep the cold weather payments and we have kept the cold weather payments. We promised to uprate the pension in line with earnings and we increased the
	earnings link. We said that we would keep the bus passes and the TV licences—we did all those things. Yes, he did mislead his electors at the election.

Tony Baldry: Queen’s award-winning Norbar Torque, rally-winning Prodrive and global award-winning CTG—Crompton Technology Group—are all manufacturing businesses based in Banbury. They are all doing so well that they want to move into larger premises, but they also have immediate skill vacancies that they need to fill. What collectively can we do to try to ensure that people who are unemployed elsewhere in the country and who have skills know of the skills they—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we do have other Members to accommodate.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue and the reaction of the Opposition shows that they are not interested in manufacturing, skills, technology and ensuring that we expand those things. We will have 250,000 apprenticeships over this Parliament, the university technical colleges will make a difference and it is very good news to hear about the expansion of manufacturing in his constituency.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to introduce a £50 civil penalty for claimants who make a mistake in completing the application form. At the same time, advice agencies have stated that they are facing a perfect storm of funding cuts and many fear that they will not be in existence to help the vulnerable in completing the forms. Does the Prime Minister think that this is fair?

David Cameron: I would make two points to the hon. Lady. First, it is fair to say that the Government are not cutting the money that we put into citizens advice bureaux, for exactly the reason she gives. I urge all councils to do what my local council has done and find savings in bureaucracy to ensure that they are putting money into citizens advice bureaux. As regards her point about fines for people who misclaim benefits, I am afraid that I think that it is right. Far too much in our system is lost from fraud and error and I do not think that taxpayers go to work, and work hard, in order to fund benefits to which people are not entitled.

Menzies Campbell: May I urge my right hon. Friend to display extreme caution in the supply of arms to the so-called rebels in Libya? The legal position is by no means clear, as his previous answer to the Leader of the Opposition made eloquently obvious. In addition, the political consequences of doing so, particularly among the nearly 40 countries that were represented at the successful conference in London yesterday, are very difficult to predict.

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to be cautious and sceptical and I think we should consider this decision with huge care. Although the legal position is clearer, there are some strong arguments like his to which we would have listen. Yesterday, however, I met Mr Jabril of the interim transitional national council and I was reassured to see that those people who are forming an alternative Government in Benghazi
	want it to be interim and transitional. They are democrats, they are not tribal, and they want to see a future for the whole of Libya where the people have a choice in how they are governed. I was encouraged by what I heard.

Heidi Alexander: Last week, I had the privilege of meeting a group of 25 women studying English for speakers of other languages courses in Lewisham. They and I share the Prime Minister’s desire that every migrant in the UK should speak the language of their new home. Given the Prime Minister’s belief that the practical things can make a big difference to community cohesion, will he commit today to putting a stop to this Government’s short-sighted cuts to English language courses?

David Cameron: We will have to take some difficult decisions over student numbers, and the priority should be to ensure that our universities can go on attracting the best and the brightest from around the world. [ Interruption. ] I will come on to the hon. Lady’s point. That is why we have said that there should be a post-study work route. However, it does mean that we should be tough, particularly on those colleges that are not highly regarded. The fact is that over the last year, about 90,000 students were coming to colleges that did not have proper regard at all.

Fiona Bruce: A multinational is applying to build an incinerator the size of a football pitch some 500 metres from the small market town of Middlewich in my constituency. There is no need for this provision; it will involve importing waste and it has been unanimously rejected by the local planning committee. Does the Prime Minister agree that the concerns of local people over the negative impact that it will have on their town should be afforded paramount importance when the proposal is considered on appeal?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend that local considerations should be taken into account. That is one reason why we have made the changes to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It is important that local communities have their say, and she has put the case extremely strongly.

Joan Walley: When all the local MPs met the North Staffordshire chamber of commerce last week, it asked us why north Staffordshire was not on the list to have a local enterprise zone. Does the Prime Minister understand the need for job creation in Stoke-on-Trent, and will he arrange for his colleagues in local government and at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to liaise with us and the Treasury to ensure that we get that investment when the new list is announced in July?

David Cameron: I completely understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, particularly in relation to Stoke, where the Potteries—[ Interruption. ] I wish that the shadow Chancellor would occasionally shut up and listen to the answer. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Other Members can now follow the Prime Minister’s advice to the shadow Chancellor. We need a bit of order.

David Cameron: I may be alone in finding the shadow Chancellor the most annoying person in modern politics—[ Interruption. ] No, no. I have a feeling that the Leader of the Opposition will one day agree with me, but there we are.
	Where were we? The Potteries, yes. Clearly, there are massive issues because of the decline of the Potteries. I completely understand the need for Stoke to have that support. It is very important that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) is working to bring together the Potteries communities, including MPs and the local enterprise partnership. I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to look at whether it can be in the next lot of enterprise zones, because we want to help the Potteries communities she represents.

Malcolm Bruce: In the light of the announcement by Statoil this week that it is cancelling £6 billion of investment in the North sea following the Budget, will the Prime Minister ensure that Ministers at the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change engage with the industry to explain how the field allowances might be adjusted to ensure that this valued investment goes ahead and that jobs are not lost?

David Cameron: I will certainly look carefully at the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The point that I would make about Statoil is that the regime in Norway has higher duties and taxes on petrol than the UK does. The key point is that when companies in the North sea made investment decisions, the oil price was about $65 a barrel, and it is now about $115 a barrel. I think that the break we are giving the motorist by cutting petrol tax—including for people in his constituency, many of whom rely on their cars—will be hugely welcome.

Mr Speaker: We come to the statement by the Foreign Secretary.

Chris Williamson: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, that points of order, without fail, come after statements. The hon. Gentleman—

Chris Williamson: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity at the appropriate time, but not at the inappropriate time.

Libya (London Conference)

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the London conference on Libya and related events.
	I informed the House last Thursday that planning was under way to transfer coalition operations from US to NATO command and control. On Sunday, NATO allies decided to take on full responsibility for the implementation of all military aspects of Security Council resolution 1973, including the civilian protection mission, along with the no-fly zone and arms embargo operations which are now under NATO command. The transition to full NATO command is under way. The North Atlantic Council will provide executive political direction for the military operations, and is meeting later today. I hope the whole House will welcome the speed with which NATO has moved to put in place the planning and launch of those three demanding operations more quickly than was the case for Bosnia or Kosovo.
	There are currently 16 nations contributing assets to coalition operations, including nations from the middle east region. Fifteen nations have now committed a total of nearly 350 aircraft, and vessels from 10 nations are supporting the arms embargo. Yesterday, Sweden announced that it would contribute eight fighter aircraft, and the United Arab Emirates publicly announced its contribution of 12 air defence fighters on Friday last week. The NATO Secretary-General has issued a request for further contributions, which we hope other countries will consider seriously.
	UK forces have undertaken more than 160 aerial missions over Libya since operations began, in addition to missile strikes. We are continuing to target the military hardware that Gaddafi is using to kill his own people. Over the weekend, in addition to patrolling the no-fly zone, RAF aircraft destroyed a number of main battle tanks and armoured vehicles near Misrata. The RAF also took part in a successful coalition mission against an ammunition storage facility store near Sabha early on Monday morning.
	As evidence of the care that we are taking to minimise the risk of civilian casualties, yesterday I received a letter from the local council in Misrata thanking Britain and our allies for the targeted strikes and the enforcement of the no-fly zone, which are alleviating pressure on the people of Misrata. The letter stated that the local council could
	“testify for the effectiveness and the accuracy of those strikes and confirm that there has been not a single case of civilian injury let alone death in and around Misrata”
	as a result of coalition activity. That is testament to the skill, experience and precision of our armed forces, and the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. Our country literally could not do without them for a single day, and they are doing a great job in support of the civilian population of Libya.
	The situation on the ground remains fluid. Regime forces have intensified their attacks, driving back opposition forces from ground that they had taken in recent days. Misrata also came under heavy attack yesterday, with further loss of civilian life, including children, from mortars, sniper fire and attacks on all sides from regime
	tanks and personnel carriers. The Department for International Development has been involved in funding the successful provision of humanitarian assistance to the city, and we are urgently examining options for the provision of further assistance. One obstacle to humanitarian support for the people of Misrata has been regime vessels trying to blockade the port. Those vessels were attacked by coalition aircraft yesterday and four of them were sunk and one was beached.
	To underline our grave concern at the regime’s behaviour, I can announce to the House that we have today taken steps to expel five diplomats at the Libyan embassy in London, including the military attaché. The Government judged that were those individuals to remain in Britain, they could pose a threat to our security. We also remain strongly committed to supporting the International Criminal Court in its investigations into crimes in Libya and to ensuring that there is no impunity for barbaric acts against the Libyan people.
	In my last statement to the House, I confirmed that I had invited the envoy of the interim transitional national council, Mahmoud Jabril, to visit London. He did so yesterday, for meetings with me and with the Prime Minister and to launch the council’s vision for a democratic Libya. I will place a copy of that document in the Library of the House.
	A British diplomatic mission also visited Benghazi on Monday and Tuesday this week, headed by a senior British diplomat, Christopher Prentice. The purpose of the mission was to meet key Libyan opposition groups in eastern Libya, including the ITNC and its military council; to gain a greater insight into the political and security situation; to explain British Government policies towards Libya; and to discuss future governance arrangements in Libya, including identifying what Britain can do to help. The team met the president of the ITNC, Mustafa al-Jalil, among others. It has now left Libya, and further missions will follow shortly.
	Yesterday, delegations including more than 30 Foreign Ministers, the UN Secretary-General and representatives of the Arab League, the European Union, NATO and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference met in London. Our Government went into the conference with three objectives, all of which were met. The first was to strengthen and broaden the international coalition committed to implementing Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. This was achieved. Many more countries were involved in the conference and supporting our objectives than at the time of the Paris summit 11 days ago.
	Secondly, we aimed to focus attention on the delivery of urgent humanitarian assistance to alleviate suffering in Misrata and at Libya’s borders, and to plan for the needs of Libya after conflict. The conference agreed priorities for a humanitarian response and welcomed an offer from the UN Secretary-General to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support. Turkey, other key regional players and international agencies offered to support that work and take it forward.
	Contingency military planning also continues in the EU to enable support to humanitarian operations, if so requested by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as agreed at the European Council last Friday. It is right that we start planning now to support Libyans over the long term to build a peaceful and prosperous future.
	Thirdly, we argued that the conference must agree the need for a political process, led by the Libyan people, that helps to create the conditions in which the people of Libya can choose their own future, supported by the international community. Military action is not an end in itself. The announcement of a political programme by the ITNC was an important first step in that process. The conference was also attended by the UN Secretary-General’s special representative for Libya, Mr al-Khatib, who travelled to Libya last night. The conference agreed that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy, and to continue efforts to isolate him and his regime by considering additional sanctions on individuals and companies associated with the regime.
	We agreed to establish a Libya contact group to take that work forward. The contact group will provide leadership and overall political direction to the international effort to support Libya; act as a forum for co-ordinating international policy on Libya; and provide a focal point in the international community for contact with the Libyan parties. Qatar has agreed to convene the first meeting of the group, which we will co-chair. Thereafter, the chairmanship will rotate between the countries of the region and beyond it.
	Security Council resolution 1973 laid out very clear conditions that the Gaddafi regime must meet, including the establishment of an immediate ceasefire, a halt to all attacks on civilians and full humanitarian access to those in need. Participants in the conference agreed to continue their efforts until all those conditions are fulfilled. The Libyan regime will be judged by its actions and not by its words.
	The London conference showed that we are united in our aims—seeking a Libya that does not pose a threat to its own citizens or to the region, and working with the people of Libya as they choose their own way forward to a peaceful and stable future. It also demonstrated clear international support for the people of Libya. With that support, there is every prospect of focused and sustained assistance to the people of Libya as they seek to determine their own future.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, although I regret that a copy of it was not made available timeously ahead of Prime Minister’s questions. None the less, I place on record my appreciation for the work of Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials in facilitating yesterday’s London meeting.
	The meeting made progress on a number of fronts on which the Opposition had specifically sought action. The establishment of a friends of Libya contact group is something that I have advocated for some weeks, and I now welcome it. Let me re-state our support for the work of our armed forces—both the RAF and the Royal Navy—in implementing UN Security Council resolution 1973. I also join the participants in the summit in welcoming the UN Secretary-General’s offer to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support.
	Although progress was made yesterday, comments from both inside and outside the conference have raised real questions for the Government. First, from the outset of this crisis, the Opposition have been keen that the Arab League and the African Union play a strong
	role. The Arab League was an early supporter of a no-fly zone, and African members of the Security Council supported resolution 1973. There will therefore be concerns that Saudi Arabia failed to attend yesterday’s conference, and although we welcome the presence of representatives of Tunisia and Morocco, there were few African states at the table and no representative of the African Union. Can the Foreign Secretary explain that and update the House on what work is being done to broaden and deepen the coalition of support for action beyond those who attended yesterday’s conference?
	Secondly, the question regarding the arming of rebels of the eastern part of Libya has two parts: would it be legal, and if it were, would it be advisable? Yesterday, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said on the legality of arming the forces of eastern Libya:
	“It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that.”
	Two weeks ago, in a debate following the passage of resolution 1973, the Prime Minister was asked the same question about the resolution by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He replied that
	“our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]
	The summary legal memorandum that the Government provided to the House for the debate on United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 is silent on this question. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary appeared to be moving closer to the US position, saying:
	“Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya, although it is consistent with resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances.”
	Will he therefore give the House his view on the legality of arming anyone in Libya under the terms of both Security Council resolutions? Given the importance and significance of this issue, will he also undertake to update the summary legal memorandum and to place copies of it in the Library of the House of Commons, so as to set out definitively the Government’s position on the interpretation of the Security Council resolutions?
	The issue of the legality of arming the rebels sits alongside the issue of its advisability. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe warned yesterday:
	“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah”.
	This is therefore a pressing and urgent question for the Government. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree with me that, to date, the case has not been made on the advisability of taking this course of action. Of course we would all prefer a Libya without Gaddafi, but, given our lack of knowledge about some elements of the rebel forces, does he agree that we must proceed with very real caution on the question of armaments? Can he confirm that all efforts are being made to identify the risk of links to al-Qaeda? Further, can he confirm whether Libyan nationals, including from eastern Libya, have been involved in the insurgency that opposed our troops in Iraq or in the continuing conflict in Afghanistan?
	The other question that has been raised in the past day is that of Gaddafi himself. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has said that he is “one hundred per cent” certain that his investigation will lead
	to charges of crimes against humanity against Gaddafi and his regime. Yesterday, however, the Foreign Secretary’s ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said that Britain
	“would not stand in the way”
	if Gaddafi were to leave the country. Can the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s position on whether they would now be prepared for Gaddafi’s escape from international justice in order to prevent further bloodshed?
	On 21 March, the Government received a specific mandate from the House for a specific mission in Libya, as set out in Security Council resolution 1973. I welcome the fact that post-conflict planning is now more firmly on the international agenda after yesterday’s meeting, but may I take the Foreign Secretary back to what the US President said when resolution 1973 was passed? He said that the resolution
	“authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime.”
	President Obama continued:
	“The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.”
	Can the Foreign Secretary therefore confirm whether, in the view of the British Government, the achievement of those conditions set out by President Obama still represent the fulfilment of the mission? Hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a Libya free of Gaddafi’s tyranny, but the consent of the international community—and the consent of the House—was given for a specific mission, with specific aims and limitations.
	As I said at the outset of this crisis, the Opposition will provide support for the enforcement of the UN resolution and sustained scrutiny of its implementation. In that spirit, I ask the Foreign Secretary to provide greater clarity in his reply, particularly on the questions of the legality of arming the rebels, the character of some of the anti-Gaddafi forces, the role of the International Criminal Court and the limited nature of this mission.

William Hague: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the wide support for the idea of a contact group. It received unanimous support at the conference yesterday, which is why it was so easy to proceed with it and, indeed, with recognising the role of the UN Secretary-General in offering to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attendance or otherwise of the Arab League and the African Union. The Arab League was well represented at yesterday’s meeting. The Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, was not able to come and he explained to me why he could not, but he sent his chef de cabinet, an ambassador, who made a powerful speech at the conference on the Arab
	League’s strong support for implementing the UN Security Council’s resolutions and for the action taken so far. No one should be in any doubt about the position of the Arab League. It is true, of course, that the African Union did not attend; there were divisions within in it over whether it should. We are in constant touch with the African Union and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in almost daily touch with its chairman. I have had several conversations about this issue with President Museveni of Uganda. Clearly, the African Union does not have a united position, but we will invite it to engage with the contact group that we are establishing and we will keep our regular communication going.
	On the question of arming the rebels, the Prime Minister made the position clear at Prime Minister’s questions. We have said that everything we do must comply with the Security Council resolutions, which also relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is a point I make constantly—that everything we do must be consistent with those resolutions. It is acting strictly in accordance with UN resolutions that gives a legal, moral and international authority to our deeds, which has not, of course, always been there before. As I have already told the House, and as the Prime Minister said in the debate a couple of weeks ago, the legal position is that the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of Libya. At the same time, our legal advice is that resolution 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas and that this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. Clearly, there are differing views internationally about the legal position, but I have explained what is the view of the British Government. As the Prime Minister told the House, we do not rule it out, but we have not taken any decision to provide that assistance.
	In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Prime Minister also indicated at Prime Minister’s questions that the Government would indeed proceed with caution on this subject, as the shadow Foreign Secretary asked us to do. Questions of advisability, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, are different from questions of legality. We will always be very conscious of that. Of course, if we changed our policy, we would certainly want to inform the House, but we are not currently engaged in any arming of the opposition or rebel forces.
	Of course we want to know about any links with al-Qaeda, as we do about links with any organisations anywhere in the world, but given what we have seen of the interim transitional national council in Libya, I think it would be right to put the emphasis on the positive side, as the Prime Minister did earlier. From everything we saw from our meetings with members of the council yesterday and from telephone conversations I have had with other members, I believe it is sincere in its commitment to a pluralistic, open Libya. The council published yesterday what is in effect its manifesto, which states its commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, to the development of political parties and civil society and so forth. I think we should welcome that and I think there is a genuine and strong desire in Libya among the opposition groups to bring those things about. It would give the wrong impression
	of those groups, from everything we have seen and everything that our diplomat, Christopher Prentice, saw in Benghazi, to accentuate any allegations of links with other groups outside Libya rather than to accentuate those intentions that they clearly hold dear to their hearts.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the International Criminal Court. I mentioned in my statement how strictly we uphold its work. The United Kingdom has always done so under successive Governments and it will continue to do so. That does not mean that we can control what happens to Colonel Gaddafi, but we are not proposing to grant him any exemption from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. That was something that we proposed should be part of UN resolution 1970.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the conditions set by President Obama on behalf of the coalition when the military operations began. Yes, those conditions still apply—the conditions of a real ceasefire, not just a pretend ceasefire. It does not mean the regime sitting in the middle of a town like Misrata and still being engaged at close quarters with the civilian population it is trying to kill. Clearly, a credible ceasefire involves disengaging from those areas. Events have moved on since President Obama made his statement, which was about not advancing on Benghazi. Since then, that has become less relevant, although we do not know whether it will become relevant again. We understand and interpret the requirement for a ceasefire and an end to violence in terms of those general conditions, which involve disengagement in order to fulfil the UN resolution. That reinforces our continuing rigid approach to enforcing the UN resolution and to staying within the UN resolution. We must also keep the international unity and moral authority that our conduct of affairs so far has given us on this issue.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I strongly disagree with the shadow Foreign Secretary and welcome the statement by the American and British Governments that military supplies to the insurgents would be permissible under the UN resolution if that were appropriate to protect civilian-populated areas? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the physical safety of the people of Tripoli and other parts of Libya will be ensured only if there is a speedy end to this civil war leading to the departure of Gaddafi, and that that cannot be achieved by coalition air power alone, but only if the insurgents—they are no longer rebels, as there is no longer any legitimacy for the Government in Tripoli—are properly assisted to bring this war to an end as soon as possible so that a no-fly zone is no longer required?

William Hague: I can go so far with my right hon. and learned Friend. He is quite right about the utter absence of legitimacy for the Gaddafi regime now, and I accept his welcome for the statement of the legal position on the supply of arms that we have set out; the United States Government also provided their version of that position. Nevertheless, I underline what I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary—that questions of advisability and policy would have to be examined in this regard, not just questions of legality. One can make the argument that my right hon. and learned Friend makes, but one can also make the argument that introducing new weapons into a conflict can have unforeseeable and unknown
	consequences both for the immediate future and for the longer term. Such considerations would have to be very carefully weighed before the Government changed their policy on this matter.

Jack Straw: May I reinforce the appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) for the Foreign Secretary by offering my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has handled this conference? The fact that the Foreign Secretary did it on an inclusive basis is, as I saw on a visit to Turkey last weekend, much acknowledged and appreciated in that country and across the region. With that in mind, I turn briefly to the issue of arms supplies to the rebels. First, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, however interesting it is for us to debate the issue of legality, the decision about the legality of any such action and the interpretation of the dense texts of these resolutions is a matter for the Attorney-General and for him alone? Secondly, does he accept that if it is lawful, it becomes a matter of advisability, as he says, and that what is critical in all this is that in making any decisions, the international coalition—especially the support of the Muslim and Arab world—is paramount?

William Hague: Yes, I think that I can happily agree with all of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Maintaining that breadth of international coalition is very important. We have said all along that the support of the Arab League and the participation of Arab nations—the Organisation of the Islamic Conference was represented strongly yesterday—were of huge importance, and they will continue to be of huge importance. We must not take actions that jeopardise that support.
	I also strongly take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about Turkey, which played a major role in our conference yesterday. I shall have further talks with the Turkish Foreign Minister this afternoon and with the Turkish Prime Minister tomorrow. The coalition Government continue to build the strongest possible bilateral relationship with Turkey, as we have done over the past 10 months.

Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on a successful conference, which was an important milestone in allowing the Libyans to decide their own future. As for the arms embargo, does he agree that there is a big difference between arming the rebels to enable them to protect themselves, and arming the rebels to enable them to attack Gaddafi, which is tantamount to regime change?

William Hague: Certainly there would be a big difference between those positions. My hon. Friend should bear in mind what I said earlier, and what the Prime Minister said, about our interpretation of Security Council resolution 1973—that it does not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance for those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. This is very much about protecting civilians. It is not about weapons that would be used primarily for attack, and it is certainly not about a general arming of one side in the conflict. So yes, there is a clear distinction between those actions.

Bob Ainsworth: As the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged, the issue of arming the insurgent groups has three dimensions. The
	first is legality, the second is our shallow knowledge of all the people involved in those insurgencies, and the third is the impact on the international community, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) persuaded the Foreign Secretary to discuss. Can he give some indication of the feedback that he has received from different partners in this operation about their attitude to the arming of the insurgent groups?

William Hague: I agree that there are those three dimensions, but I believe that it is for other countries to state their positions. I do not think that it would be right for me to go through a checklist of countries and announce any attitudes that they have expressed to Her Majesty’s Government in private—I do not think that that would be very diplomatic—and I therefore fear that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the information that he has requested. I can say, however, that although there is a variety of views on the issue, all the nations involved in the conference are of the same mind. That was made clear during the press conference that I held with the Prime Minister of Qatar last night. However those nations interpret the resolutions, it is not their policy at this moment to engage in arming particular groups in Libya. I believe that there is an international consensus on that.

John Baron: Some of us remain of the view that the west’s intervention is as much about regime change as it is about humanitarian aid. Will the Foreign Secretary make absolutely clear whether it is the Government’s view that UN Security Council resolution 1973 would allow a no-fly zone, in effect, to follow the rebels should they wish to attack Tripoli, and also allow the west’s fighter planes to hit Gaddafi’s ground forces in Tripoli if that were to be the case?

William Hague: I disagree with some of my hon. Friend’s assumptions. This is not a western intervention but the enforcement of a United Nations resolution for which African and Arab nations voted, and Arab nations are participating in the enforcement of that resolution. The no-fly zone applies to the whole of Libya, and it is in force over a very wide area of Libya. Of course that includes Tripoli, and will continue to include Tripoli whatever the circumstances on the ground. As I keep stressing, air strikes against ground forces of the regime have been and will continue to be used—in accordance with the UN resolution—on forces that are attacking, or can be used to threaten to attack, or pose a threat of attack, to civilian and populated areas.

Mike Gapes: Earlier this week the Prime Minister told us that the African Union would be represented at the London conference, although he did not know the individual concerned. The Foreign Secretary has referred to some internal difficulties in the African Union, but has said in earlier answers that it has a potential role in providing for a ceasefire or a peaceful solution. Can he tell us more about why the African Union did not attend, and when the British Government were informed that it would not do so?

William Hague: The position of the African Union on attendance changed several times during the days preceding the conference, owing to internal disagreements. Only at the last moment—the night before the conference, I believe—was it certain that the African Union would not attend. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, we are engaged in constant dialogue with the African Union, and it has an important role to play. We will continue that dialogue, and I hope that the African Union will join a contact group.
	I do not think that the basis of the disagreements within the African Union comes as any surprise. Yesterday’s conference expressed strong support for the implementation of the resolutions and for the actions that we are taking, including the military action, under operative paragraph 4 of resolution 1973. Some African nations find that difficult. Some of them have been the closest of all nations in the world to the Gaddafi regime, and it is not surprising that that creates some tensions in the African Union and makes it more difficult for it to engage in a conference of this kind.

Bob Stewart: Last week I had contact with someone who opposed Colonel Gaddafi in Tripoli. Having had some experience of what people such as the members of Colonel Gaddafi’s security organisation may be doing, I am quite concerned about what is happening in the streets and alleys of Tripoli. Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of what action Gaddafi is taking against likely opponents within Tripoli?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to raise those fears. A report produced yesterday by Amnesty International quotes its middle east and north Africa director as saying:
	“It appears that there is a systematic policy to detain anyone suspected of opposition to Colonel al-Gaddafi's rule, hold them incommunicado, and transfer them to his strongholds in western Libya”.
	He is also quoted as saying:
	“there is every reason to believe that these individuals are at serious risk of torture and ill-treatment.”
	Given the reports from Amnesty International and other reports that have appeared in the media, and the kind of things that have been communicated to my hon. Friend, I think we can be confident that this is a regime with absolutely no regard for human rights, for human life, or for the welfare of the people of its own country. That is why, in the eyes of virtually of the whole world, it has utterly lost its legitimacy.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am slightly concerned about the fact that the Foreign Secretary appears to be taking advice on human rights from the President of Uganda on behalf of the African Union, because Uganda’s human rights record is, to say the least, questionable. Does the Foreign Secretary not acknowledge that we are now involved in a civil war? Anyone listening to his statement from outside will have recognised that Britain is supporting the insurgent forces in Libya.
	Is there any endgame? Does the Foreign Secretary intend to send in ground forces? Does he intend to arm the insurgent forces? It seems to me that we are being increasingly sucked into a conflict with no obvious end
	in sight other than a great deal of bloodshed. Can the Foreign Secretary say something more about diplomatic efforts to bring about an internal ceasefire and an internal settlement in Libya, rather than pouring in more and more arms and weapons?

William Hague: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not call President Museveni to ask for his advice on human rights. As I explained earlier, I called him to discuss the African Union’s attendance at the London conference. The hon. Gentleman must not place a different interpretation on what I said. In fact, I must correct what he has said in a couple of respects. He ended his question by saying that we were pouring more arms into Libya, but it follows from everything that I have said so far that we are not pouring more arms into Libya.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the end of all this. Let us remember that the purpose of resolution 1973 is to protect civilian life, which is what we have been achieving. Had we not passed that resolution and acted on it quickly, the loss of civilian life would have been dramatically greater, and the humanitarian crisis with which we would now be dealing would also be dramatically greater. Even at this stage, the achievement of those things in the last 11 days is something that people of all points of view should be able to welcome. Even the hon. Gentleman might say a word of welcome about the way in which people’s lives and human rights have been protected.

Martin Horwood: I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary. Being a bit more of an optimist than the shadow Foreign Secretary, I strongly welcome the vision of a democratic Libya published by the interim transitional national council. Does the Foreign Secretary welcome in particular its commitment to intellectual and political pluralism, the rights and empowerment of women and the rights of minorities, and what practical steps are we taking to build the ITNC’s capacity for democratic government?

William Hague: I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming that statement. It includes other provisions as well as those he mentions, and the ITNC has given much time and serious thought to it. It is not a rushed document: ITNC members have debated it among themselves and prepared it carefully. I encouraged them to publish it yesterday because I think it showed, alongside the London conference, that it is the people of Libya who will lead and decide their own future. It is a very encouraging document in that regard. Our diplomatic contact with the ITNC, including the visit of our diplomats there on Monday and Tuesday of this week, has included looking at how we can support it in developing capacity for, and ideas about, securing democracy and a free society in the future. Developing such links will be a prime objective of the further missions we are now planning to Benghazi.

Dennis Skinner: Why cannot the Government be clear about not rearming the insurgent groups in Libya now that the NATO commander has testified to the US Senate that he cannot rule out infiltration by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups? As an historian, the Foreign Secretary knows that in the 1980s another ally—America—decided to arm Osama bin Laden to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and now British troops are dying on the mountains of Afghanistan because of that error. Don’t repeat it.

William Hague: I shall put the hon. Gentleman down as being opposed to the arming of the rebels—but he must not get too excited about things that we have not done. Such questions of advisability are the very questions that would need to be assessed. As I have said, if we changed our policy on this we would say so to the House, and we would then be able to debate that. The hon. Gentleman is right that in history there are examples—more than the one example he gave—of weapons being given to people in good faith and then being used at a later stage for other purposes that their original owners had not desired. That is one of the considerations that have to be borne in mind.

Anne Main: May I urge the Foreign Secretary to resist the siren calls of the shadow Foreign Secretary about looking at the backgrounds and links of the people operating in Libya as insurgents? Otherwise we shall be accused of picking favourites. I urge my right hon. Friend to make every effort to continue both his encouragement for democracy strengthening and our sitting on the sidelines, while also being vigilant about the human rights of the civilians in Libya.

William Hague: It is very important that it is the people of Libya who determine their own future. That is very clear, and my hon. Friend underlines the point. We are not trying to determine the future Government. It is clear that the ITNC has brought together a wide spread of groups and figures in the opposition and that they genuinely represent the opposition forces in Libya at present, but that is not to say that exactly that combination of people would turn out to be the future Government of a free Libya. As my hon. Friend says, we will not pick winners, but we will support an open process of political transition in Libya.

Stephen McCabe: The Foreign Secretary presents quite an upbeat picture, but what assessment has he made of the Deputy Prime Minister’s observation that the current action could well result in the creation of a hostile Islamist Government in Libya?

William Hague: It is very important that not only in Libya, but in north Africa as a whole, the UK and the European Union take the bold and ambitious approach that I described earlier, in order to act as a magnet for positive change—for civil society, open political systems, the building up of small and medium-sized enterprises, and all the other building blocks of democracy—but we cannot guarantee the outcome, of course. That is why we must make sure Europe provides a very big and effective magnet for those changes. If we fail to do that, not just Libya but any of the other countries in the region could become breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism. I think we should be on the optimistic side of this situation in which millions of people are seeking greater freedom, openness and democracy, but we should also be alert to the dangers if they do not succeed in getting those things.

Edward Leigh: I strongly agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary and his measured words, and urge extreme caution on my right hon. Friend. Would it not be a double win for al-Qaeda, and would we not start losing support in the Arab world, if
	we were seen to impose a solution on Libya and at the same time give arms to people who could prove to be Islamist insurgents in the future?

William Hague: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not be engaged in imposing any solution on Libya. We will carry out necessary operations to implement the UN Security Council resolutions, but we are not in the business of imposing a solution, or a Government, on Libya. Indeed, if we were, we would lose that wider Arab and regional support, of whose importance he rightly reminds us.

David Winnick: Everyone would like to see the end of Gaddafi and his regime; that is not in question. It is a murderous regime, and has been for 42 years; that is not in doubt. However, has the Foreign Secretary noticed that there have been more critical voices today than at any time since the situation in Libya started? There are such critical voices both here and on the international scene because, despite what the Foreign Secretary has been telling us, there is a growing impression that the coalition forces are, in fact, involved in regime change, which is totally outside the terms of the resolution—and, indeed, outside international law.

William Hague: I would defy the hon. Gentleman to find any action taken by the coalition that is not in line with the UN Security Council resolutions. Everything we have done is in line with those resolutions. That was endorsed by everybody at the conference yesterday, and that will remain the case. The extreme care being taken to avoid civilian casualties is very clear, and a great contrast to the behaviour of the Gaddafi regime. It is important that we constantly underline these points in order to get that message across to the wider world, as well as in our own country, and the Government will continue to do so.

Jo Swinson: In the light of reports that rape is being used as a weapon of war by Gaddafi’s forces, and the appalling recent incident of the arrest of a rape victim who dared to speak out, can the Foreign Secretary give us more information on the aspect of the political programme announced by the ITNC addressing how the voices of Libyan women will be heard and how they will be active participants, given that UN Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1880 make it very clear that involving both men and women is essential for successful post-conflict peace building?

William Hague: My hon. Friend draws attention to one very well-publicised case of recent days that has shocked the whole world, and there are reports that such treatment of women by the Gaddafi regime is much more widespread. That is another indication of the regime’s absolute disregard for, and lack of any understanding of, human rights. As our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out earlier, it is a good sign that a commitment to women’s rights and the involvement of women is in the ITNC’s vision for a democratic Libya. That is in a culture and a country that does not have a strong tradition of women in leadership roles, but let us hope that it will be a characteristic of a future freer Libya.

Geoffrey Robinson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House so promptly and giving such a full account of events at the London conference, as he promised he would. A growing impression is being given as a result of his and the Prime Minister’s comments today—and Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks yesterday—that we are edging our way towards arming the rebels in certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? Also, since the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said that that would, in the Government’s view, be legal, presumably the Attorney-General has given a view on it. As far as many of us are concerned, either we must go back to the UN—I am sure the Foreign Secretary would not relish that prospect—and get a clarification of what has been called the dense text of the resolution or, at a minimum, the Attorney-General’s legal opinion on the circumstances in which we might arm the rebels should be sought and published.

William Hague: The Government’s understanding of the legal position is the one that I have set out: it lies in the exact words that I used earlier. The Prime Minister used the same words, and I used similar words on the television last night. That understanding is, of course, based on the Attorney-General’s views. As an experienced Member and former Minister, the hon. Gentleman knows the position on Government publication of the legal advice, although he also knows that we have been more forthcoming about that than has sometimes been the case in the past. The advice that I have given to the House—the statement of the Government’s position—is very much based on the legal advice and can be taken as the Government’s definitive view on the matter.

William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary note that I am glad to hear that the Government have moved somewhat since my exchanges with the Prime Minister a week last Friday, when resolution 1973 was published? May I also say that we cannot have it both ways, and that the Sanctions Committee is also involved in this? Have any suggestions been made to approach it with a view to ensuring that what is done is legally done, in accordance with the best legal advice?

William Hague: As my hon. Friend will understand, we are not proposing, at this point, to change our policy on this. If we did so, we would want to be absolutely satisfied that that was not only advisable but legal. We would need to be sure of that and able to assure the House of it, so I will bear his advice in mind.

Caroline Lucas: During the debate in this House on Monday of last week, Members on both sides expressed their concern about mission creep. That concern has been heightened by today’s debate on potentially arming the rebels. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the impression is given that NATO-led forces are taking sides in what is becoming a civil war, that will be deeply counter-productive to the cause of a lasting peace?

William Hague: I will put that in a slightly different way, which is that it is very important to stick to the UN resolution. I think that that is at the heart of what the hon. Lady is saying, and it is very strongly the view of the Government. Although NATO is providing the
	command and control, it is clear that Arab nations are also taking part in this operation and many others support it. After all, the whole of the Arab League, with only one dissenting voice, called for a no-fly zone and the protection of civilian areas in Libya. As I assured the House earlier, we will always act in a way that maintains that broad international support. We are certainly not engaged in any mission creep. We are engaged in the protection of civilian areas, the enforcement of a no-fly zone, the delivery of humanitarian aid and the enforcement of an arms embargo. That is what we set out to do, and that is what we are continuing to do.

James Morris: The Foreign Secretary talked about the British diplomatic mission to Benghazi. Does he agree that Britain can play a leading role there in building necessary links and thinking through issues associated with a post-conflict democratic settlement?

William Hague: Yes, we absolutely can. We have diplomats and development advisers who are very well placed to do that. As I have mentioned before, doing that across the whole of north Africa in a way that is not patronising to the countries involved but which brings genuine expertise in the building of civil society and political pluralism is an important part of our role.

Michael Weir: My colleagues and I fully support resolution 1973, but the reinterpretation of it in respect of arms to the rebels does suggest mission creep and is in danger of shattering the political consensus. It has been suggested in some quarters that the rebels have also asked for British troops to help with training. Can the Foreign Secretary give us a cast-iron assurance that there will be no British troops on the ground in Libya in any circumstances?

William Hague: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman somewhat on that point. He knows that the UN resolution is clear that there must be no occupying force in Libya or any part of Libya. Let me give him further reassurance: in my meetings with the interim transitional national council, the opposition in Libya, they have not asked for our troops to go to train them, and we are not doing that at the moment. For the reasons that I gave in the House last week, I will not exclude our ever having any forces of any kind anywhere, in small numbers, on Libyan soil, because we have already had to do that: in order to rescue our nationals from the desert a month ago, we had to send the RAF and special forces into desert locations. Circumstances can arise in which such limited operations have to take place, but there will be no ground invasion of Libya and no occupation of Libya, and the request to which the hon. Gentleman refers certainly has not been made to me.

Keith Vaz: At this important and successful conference what discussions took place about the situation in Yemen? As the Foreign Secretary knows, Libya has 6 million people whereas Yemen has 23 million people, and a state of emergency was declared there last week. When he last came to the Dispatch Box he promised to continue the dialogue with Yemen’s president and people. Is there not a role for the international community to play to ensure that that continues?

William Hague: Yes. Yemen was not the subject of yesterday’s conference, although, as the right hon. Gentleman can imagine, it was the subject of some of our discussions in the margins. Certainly Secretary of State Clinton and I discussed Yemen, among other subjects, in the morning. We continue to look to the various parties in Yemen to settle their differences peacefully. We do not want to see civil conflict in Yemen or the collapse of all authority in Yemen, which really would raise the much greater spectre of a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom on a vastly greater scale than anything we have discussed in the House so far this afternoon. The British Government are heavily engaged in this situation and our ambassador in Sana’a, in particular, is doing an outstanding job in giving very good advice and conveying all the views of this country to the President and to the other various factions involved in Yemen. So we are doing our best to use our good offices to bring about a more peaceful situation there.

Mary Macleod: May I commend the work that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done on Libya and the London conference? May I also commend the work of our armed forces, whose skill and expertise has meant that there has not been a single case of civilian injury, which is incredible? Can he confirm that we may use our armed forces to deliver humanitarian aid to Libya—if we are not already doing so—and thus make sure that we are supporting civilians as much as possible?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have not, so far, been using our armed forces to deliver humanitarian aid, although contingency planning done by various nations includes the ability to do that. However, it is better, if at all possible, to deliver humanitarian aid in a way that does not get that aid involved in the conflict that is going on in Libya. So we are trying to get that aid in by supporting other organisations and by some direct deliveries from our allies. As the Secretary of State for International Development made clear at his Department’s Question Time, that has enabled us to provide essential supplies for a very large number of people already.

Hugh Bayley: What assessment have the Government made of the risk of civilian casualties if the insurgent forces were to get to Tripoli and start fighting, street by street, for control of the capital? What likelihood is there that the political track would create some kind of solution and a ceasefire before that situation arose?

William Hague: Obviously, what we are hoping for and looking for is a genuine ceasefire—that is what the whole world wants to see. If the Gaddafi regime would accept that on the terms that I was discussing earlier with the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander)—it should not be difficult to do that—we would have a ceasefire and everybody would be able to proceed from there. All I can say about the opposition forces and the danger of civilian deaths from their activities is that, so far, we have no record of their being engaged in attacks on civilians. For one thing, they have not made frontal attacks on civilian areas and, for another, where they have managed to gain territory they have generally been welcomed by the
	local people. It is certainly part of the beliefs of the opposition that in most of the western towns and cities of Libya there would be a very strong welcome for the opposition forces. So they have avoided civilian casualties in their own operations so far, and we look to them to continue to do so.

Christopher Pincher: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend might need to be careful with his answer to this question. Given the news from Misrata of further attacks on civilians, can he give an estimate of the munitions supplies and military capability that remain available to Gaddafi and of the effectiveness of the blockade of munitions from land and sea and by air?

William Hague: I will have to be a bit careful with my answer. Clearly, events such as the attack by coalition aircraft on a major ammunition storage depot in the early hours of Monday will have made a difference to the ammunition supplies of the Libyan regime. It is very difficult to quantify that, but it will have made a significant difference. Equally, the successful attacks on regime vessels that were seeking to blockade Misrata yesterday will have made a significant difference to their ability to blockade that city. It is not possible to put a precise statistical estimate on the things my hon. Friend is asking for, but one can say with a fair degree of confidence that, if it had not been for coalition activity, the citizens of Misrata would by now have sustained many, many more casualties. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the city would have been taken over by regime forces, with desperate consequences for many of its inhabitants.

Andy Slaughter: The Foreign Secretary says that coalition and British forces should follow the letter of the UN resolution, and indeed the resolution of the House, but are they doing so? Reports coming out of Libya suggest that we are supporting offensive actions by the rebels, and there are mixed messages about regime change, including from the Government Front Bench. Does he accept that there will be a breakdown in the broad consensus either in the UN or in this House if there is not clear evidence that only humanitarian and protective ambitions are being achieved?

William Hague: No, I do not accept any of the premises of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What we have just seen at the London conference is a serious broadening and deepening of support for what we are doing under the United Nations resolution and I have stressed the importance of maintaining that. He can be sure that British forces and our allies are acting entirely within the UN resolution and I am not aware of anyone who is able to bring to the House any evidence that they are doing anything other than that. He would do well to support our forces in the difficult job they are undertaking rather than to entertain the idea that they are doing something different.

Matthew Offord: Although there is widespread agreement that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy, it is increasingly unlikely that he will step down voluntarily. Apart from the no-fly zone, what does the coalition force propose to bring an absolute end to the conflict?

William Hague: I must be clear with my hon. Friend, as I have been with other hon. Members, that our military mission is defined by the United Nations resolution. As one or two Members have pointed out, neither the mission nor the resolution includes regime change. Yes, we think Gaddafi should go, as does any rational person on earth—it is impossible to see a viable future for his country while he remains there—but in our military activity we will stick absolutely to what is laid out in the UN resolution.

Mark Durkan: I note that the Foreign Secretary has not told us how much of the Gaddafi hardware now being targeted by coalition forces was provided by those countries in the first place. He also knows that in the debate of 21 March the Government clearly resiled from calls to arm the rebels and offered assurances regarding regime change and questions about the future governance of Libya. They also told us that there was international consensus on a clear and focused interpretation. Does he agree that those interpretations have been moving and varied since then, and is not the spin shift of the past 10 days evidence that the Government and the coalition are struggling to defy gravity and are being sucked into mission creep?

William Hague: No, that is entirely wrong. I wish the hon. Gentleman could have come along to the conference yesterday. If he had, he would have seen the degree of international support—indeed, unanimity—for these things, which is quite extraordinary for an international event involving such a varied group of nations from both sides of the Atlantic and around the middle east. That international consensus has been strengthened, the international focus on the UN resolution is as strong as it was at the beginning and our commitment to operate within it is as strong as it was at the beginning, so we are not engaging in any mission creep.

Rehman Chishti: First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the way in which he has handled the overall situation? Will he clarify one point about the UN resolution’s mention of protecting civilians under attack in Libya, “including Benghazi”? Why expressly mention Benghazi and not Misrata or Zawiya?

William Hague: That is a fair question. The mention of Benghazi is a product of the days in which the UN resolution was drafted and agreed at the UN Security Council, when the most specific threat to the largest number of people was to the civilian population of Benghazi. My hon. Friend will remember that at that time the Gaddafi forces were advancing rapidly on it, so when the resolution was agreed it was easy to put Benghazi in it. As he knows from reading that paragraph, its provisions apply to all the other civilian-populated areas of Libya; the inclusion of Benghazi was not meant to exclude any other areas.

Thomas Docherty: May I press the Foreign Secretary to say something more about the contact group, specifically the size, frequency of meetings and the ministerial level at which those meetings will take place?

William Hague: The membership of the group will be decided in the coming days. Clearly, as Qatar is hosting the next meeting and we will co-chair it, we will work closely with the Qataris on the membership of the contact group, which will need to be internationally agreed. It should certainly include international organisations such as the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations, the EU High Representative and the African Union if they want to be associated with it, and it also needs to include key nations from both sides of the Atlantic and from the middle east and north Africa region. It will need to include at least a dozen nations—perhaps a few more—to be of a size that can be cohesive and able to work together. I envisage it meeting for the first time within the next two weeks, certainly. We will be represented at senior ministerial level, which means by me or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), if I have duties elsewhere. I think it will be a very useful and important group for the high-level political oversight of the whole work of the coalition.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his mojo on Libya. Given what my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) have said about the terrible treatment of civilians in Libya and about the prisons and torture there, did my right hon. Friend have any discussions yesterday with the other countries about bringing to justice those who are perpetrating war crimes, particularly about ensuring that Gaddafi is not allowed to go into exile but is brought before the International Criminal Court?

William Hague: We have had those discussions all along. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a reference to the prosecutor of the ICC in resolution 1970—the first of the two resolutions passed on these matters. Just as we remain strongly attached to the implementation of resolution 1973, we are also firmly committed to the implementation of resolution 1970 and we want people to know that we are not going to be advocates of impunity for those crimes.

Nigel Dodds: May I pay tribute to the work that our servicemen and women—the RAF and the Navy—are doing once again on our behalf and the way in which they are carrying out those operations, minimising civilian casualties? We endorse the careful and cautious approach of the Foreign Secretary and the Government because of the concerns about al-Qaeda. Will the Foreign Secretary address the issue that was raised earlier about the role of fighters from eastern Libya in Afghanistan and elsewhere? What knowledge can he bring to the House about that and the role of al-Qaeda links in Libya today?

William Hague: I am grateful, as the whole House will be, for the reaffirmation from all sides of support for the work of our armed forces. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to that, but I cannot give him specific information about people in eastern Libya fighting in Afghanistan. As he knows, there are fighters in Afghanistan on the Taliban side drawn from a wide area around the world, but it would not be accurate to represent the
	eastern part of Libya as a major factor in that or a major area for the recruitment of such people. As I say, it would be most accurate to place the accent on the positive and democratic side of the opposition in Libya rather than on any other side.

Rory Stewart: May I strongly and respectfully disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? The UN resolution is not some law that has passed through a Bill Committee of the House of Commons; it is a contract between us, Germany, Brazil and India. We should be very, very careful not to push the letter of the law, but to stick to the spirit of that resolution. If anyone is to arm the rebels, may I respectfully suggest that Britain should not be in the lead?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes some powerful points. He is right that in looking at a UN resolution one must bear in mind not only the precise words with which it was drafted but the circumstances in which it was agreed and any understanding at the time, and we shall certainly do so.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is clear from television pictures that a humanitarian catastrophe is waiting to happen—no water, no electricity, no food, medical supplies dwindling, and those who have been injured, shot or blown up by other forces queuing up at the hospital. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that technical support is given to civilians in Libya so that they can resume some normality in their lives?

William Hague: We are giving a lot of support. We are giving financial support to organisations that are involved in supplying such aid. We have provided a specific amount of supplies for up to 100,000 people, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development indicated earlier. We have other projects under way to support the bringing of direct help to some of the people in the most desperate situations. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot announce in advance what they are in case the Gaddafi regime tries to prevent them, but he can be assured that we are giving a lot of attention to the issue.

Dan Byles: I, too, warmly welcome the news that there have been no civilian casualties so far as a result of the action that we have taken, which is a testament to the skill and delicacy of our pilots. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the closer the fighting gets to the urban centres in the west of Libya, particularly around Tripoli, the harder it will be to avoid civilian casualties as a result of fighting on the ground and from the air.
	I urge the Foreign Secretary to hold robust conversations with the Arab League and other regional players to ensure that we know where the tipping point is between air action to support civilians and air action in support of offensive ground action by the rebels, because it is a grey area—

Mr Speaker: We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we have a lot of business today. I call the Foreign Secretary.

William Hague: To give a brief answer to conclude, the best way to put it to my hon. Friend is as follows. We retain the moral and international standing, particularly because of the extreme care that we take to minimise—to avoid—civilian casualties. That must continue throughout the operation. The purpose of the operation is to protect civilians. It cannot be part of its purpose to inflict damage or death on civilians, so whatever the situation, however it develops over the coming days or weeks, we will continue to take that extreme care.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and colleagues for their succinctness.

Points of Order

Chris Williamson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to unparliamentary language by the Prime Minister, which is why I was keen to make a point of order before he left the Chamber. I apologise if I appeared a little over-insistent. I believe that I heard the Prime Minister accuse me of being misleading, which is unparliamentary language.

Mr Speaker: I can deal with the point very simply. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that nothing unparliamentary was said, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, let me make clear what a lot of hon. Members know, but some perhaps do not. To accuse someone of misleading the House is unparliamentary and a breach of order. The use of the word “misleading” in the way in which the Prime Minister used it is not unparliamentary or out of order. That is a statement of fact, and I hope that it is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been some confusion about the use of iPads and other electronic devices both in the Chamber and in Committee, particularly the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee. Will you advise the House of the conclusions of the Procedure Committee on the use of such devices?

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it.
	I shall deal with this briefly, and in two parts. First, my guidance on the courtesies and conventions of the House states that the House has agreed to the use in the Chamber of hand-held devices to keep up to date with e-mails, provided that they cause no disturbance. All such devices may be switched on as long as they are in silent mode. Members should not use electronic devices as an aide memoire in debate.
	Secondly—and the hon. Gentleman referred to this—the Procedure Committee reported last week on this matter and the House will soon want to debate its report. In the meantime, I do not think that the occupant of the Chair can reasonably prevent a Member from discreetly using such a device as an aide memoire in debate. Members should remember to send any notes, electronically or not, to Hansard. I hope—I reiterate this forcefully—that the House will soon reach a view on this in order, apart from anything else, to assist the Chair.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an earlier exchange with the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) seemed to imply that he possessed leaked information about a cancellation or compromise of the crisis loans scheme. Will you advise me on how we can get accurate information on this matter, as it has been raised on the Floor of the House?

Mr Speaker: I have a feeling that the hon. Lady’s expectations of the scope of my powers are unrealistic, however generous-spirited they might be. It is extraordinarily
	good of her to think that these matters are within my compass, but I fear that unless I am gifted with talents that I do not possess I am unlikely to be able to satisfy her demands on this front. More widely, I would say very simply to her that hon. Members are responsible for their own statements, and if she wishes to follow up the matter with the hon. Member in question she is welcome to do so.

Gregg McClymont: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to claim again today that the Government have embarked on the biggest work programme since the great depression? As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, there was no meaningful work programme during the great depression, but what we did have in the 1930s was mass unemployment presided over by a Tory-Liberal coalition.

Mr Speaker: I may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I state the truth when I say two things. First, the Prime Minister was in order and, secondly, in his attempted point of order, the hon. Gentleman was not, but he has put his concerns on the record.

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to the arrangements for debates organised by the Backbench Business Committee on Tuesday 5 April, which are excellent? I think that all hon. Members will welcome the changes that have been brought about. However, I note that each Member participating in the general debate will receive
	“a substantive written reply from the Department to the points raised unless they are dealt with fully in the Deputy Leader of the House’s reply.”
	Who will make that adjudication? Let us hope that it is a matter for the Chair.

Mr Speaker: Of course, it is a matter for individual Members of the House to decide whether they have received a good reply. In fairness, and in the presence of the deputy Leader of the House, who has regularly shown himself, not least recently, to be conscientious in responding to colleagues’ concerns, my hunch would be that if the deputy Leader of the House, whose antennae are sharp, sensed widespread dissatisfaction among Members, he would want to respond to it. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the work of the Backbench Business Committee and of the Chair, my cup runneth over. I am extremely grateful to him.
	If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has been patiently waiting.

Alcohol Marketing

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Sarah Wollaston: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce measures to reduce the exposure of children to the marketing of alcohol products; to make provision to establish the permitted content of marketing of alcohol products; and for connected purposes.
	About 13 young people will die this week as a result of alcohol, and about 650 this year. Nearly a quarter of all deaths of young people aged between 15 and 24 are caused by alcohol. That is two every day—far more than are killed by knife crime or cancer—yet this tragic loss from alcohol attracts far less by way of a response. These totally avoidable deaths are just the tip of the iceberg and do not begin to represent the full scale of the harm caused by alcohol to children.
	Alcohol blights lives, with criminal records as a result of violent and antisocial behaviour, and it results in educational failure. Regretted and unprotected sex raises the risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Around 7,500 children are admitted every year to English hospitals alone as a result of acute intoxication, and that figure does not include the carnage in our accident and emergency departments.
	There are many contributing factors and no simple solutions. Ultra-cheap alcohol and saturation availability still need to be tackled, but we also need a change in our drinking culture. The Bill aims to tackle one of the root causes of that culture, and there is a clear evidence base to support it. Youth culture is heavily influenced by marketing and our children are saturated by alcohol advertising. Despite the clear evidence of harm—only Denmark and the Isle of Man have higher levels of binge drinking and drunkenness in their schoolchildren—the European school survey demonstrated that our children have the most positive expectations of alcohol of any children in Europe and were the least likely to feel that it might cause them harm.
	Where do those positive expectations come from? Let us just look at the scale of marketing in the UK. The estimated spend on alcohol marketing is around £800 million, compared with the Drinkaware trust’s funding by the industry of just £2.6 million. When £307 is spent encouraging drinking for every pound spent promoting sensible behaviour, the results are predictable. The World Health Organisation hit the nail on the head when it said:
	“In such a profoundly pro-drinking environment, health education becomes futile.”
	The Portman Group, one of the main regulators of the industry, would have us believe that it runs a very tight ship and is effective in protecting children. That simply is not true.
	Our confusing and inadequate combination of legislation and industry self-regulation is not working. The report on alcohol by the last Health Committee highlighted the fact that 96% of 13-year-olds from a sample of 920 were aware of alcohol advertising in at least five different media, and between 91% and 95% were able to identify masked brands. Nearly half owned alcohol-branded products, such as clothing. Does that matter?
	A systematic review of multiple studies looking at the impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescents—a study that reviewed many studies—concluded that increasing exposure to alcohol marketing encourages children to start drinking younger and to drink more when they do. The Academy of Medical Sciences report “Calling Time” showed a consistent correlation between consumption levels by 11 to 15-year-olds and the amount spent on marketing. We can be sure that, if alcohol advertising did not work, the industry would not pay for it.
	Many of the possible solutions to our binge-drinking epidemic are incompatible with European law, so it is rather refreshing to hear that France has found a way forward. In 1991, in response to saturation inappropriate marketing, the French introduced a measure called the Loi Evin. This law has been repeatedly challenged in the European courts and has been upheld as
	“proportionate, effective and consistent with the Treaty of Rome”,
	which all Members would agree makes a pleasant change.
	Alcohol was a serious problem in France. In 1960 the French were consuming over 30 litres of pure alcohol per capita per year. Consumption is well under half that figure now. I accept that French levels of alcohol consumption were falling before the Loi Evin was introduced, but the French have managed to sustain that decline and the long-term trend continues to be downwards. That is partly because their young people are no longer exposed to a continuous barrage of insinuating and pervasive messages about alcohol.
	I am not suggesting a retreat to the nanny state or a ban, but we should aim to protect children, especially as there is clear evidence of their exposure to marketing and the consequent harm. We currently have an absurd situation where advertisers are not supposed to link drinking with social or sexual success or portray drinkers as youthful or vigorous, but they can regularly sponsor major sporting and youth events, such as T in the park. The Bill aims to reduce the exposure of children to the harmful effects of alcohol marketing by setting out what advertisers are allowed to say and where they can say it. Rather than the current confused cocktail of legislation and self-regulatory codes, let us switch to something that works.
	The Bill would permit the promotion of alcohol in media that adults use. That would include the print media, where at least 90% of readers are adults rather than children, radio after 9 pm and films with an 18 certificate. It would allow advertising at the point of sale in licensed premises and at traditional producer events, so it would not penalise, for example, west country cider makers or small Scottish distilleries. In these media, advertisers would be permitted only to make factual and verifiable statements about their products, such as alcoholic strength, composition and place of origin. Every advert would also carry an advisory message about responsible drinking or health.
	Any other marketing or promotion not specifically permitted would therefore be banned, and this would include television, social media and youth-certified films. The Bill would specifically prevent the growing threat from viral phone marketing and ploys such as “advergames” on the internet, where so-called games are a cover for
	alcohol marketing. I think we would all agree that those are designed specifically to appeal to young people. Ofcom in its own research has demonstrated that for every five 24-year-olds who see an alcohol advert on television, there are four 10-year-olds who see the same advert. The industry will claim that these measures will kill off sport and culture, and that advertising is designed only to persuade people to switch brands. The same claim was made before the tobacco advertising ban. I point out that France has managed a World cup and a European cup without any help from alcohol sponsorship.
	Across the channel, the Loi Evin is backed up by heavy penalties which have been imposed by the courts and now act as a significant deterrent. May I ask that we stop putting the fox in charge of the chickens and have a clear statutory code to protect our children? The Government could adopt this measure very quickly. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) in the Chamber today. I call on him to meet me to discuss further how we could implement the measure in the Government’s alcohol strategy.
	The coalition has staked a great deal on talking about outcomes. If we are serious about outcomes such as reducing health inequality, reducing violent crime and domestic violence, improving the life chances of our children and reducing teenage pregnancy, we must stop talking to the drinks industry, with its vested interest in increasing drinking, and start listening to those with real expertise in preventing alcohol-related deaths. Not so much big society, perhaps, as big sobriety.

Philip Davies: It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that I object to the Bill in principle and in practice. Despite her best efforts to suggest otherwise, it is clearly an attempted extension of the nanny state, of which we have had far too much already. It is gesture politics to try to appease the health zealots in this country, most of whom cannot be appeased anyway.
	I accept my hon. Friend’s point that the British Medical Association found that 96% of 13-year-olds are aware of alcohol advertising. However, I dispute the inference that that leads them to go out and drink. After all, many 13-year-olds are probably well aware of car adverts, but that does not mean that they all go out driving as a result of watching them. All the research has shown the exact opposite. When young people were asked what was most likely to influence people under the age of 18 to drink alcoholic drinks regularly, 67% said the influence of friends, 56% said the availability of drink, just 5% said TV advertising, and only 3% said sponsorship.
	If we accept this policy, where will it end? All sorts of products are bad for us if taken in excess. Cream cakes are undoubtedly bad for us if we partake of them in excess, as are pizzas, chocolates and curries. Does my hon. Friend propose to come back at a future date to ban the advertising of cream cakes, pizzas and curries, or anything that happens to be bad for us? This is the start of a very slippery slope, and one that I am not prepared to go down.
	The Bill would do enormous damage to sports clubs. It is estimated that alcohol companies spend between £150 million and £200 million a year sponsoring sport alone, including many amateur sports teams. Without that sponsorship it would be difficult for those clubs to continue. We have the rather ludicrous suggestion that we should for health reasons attempt to try to stop the advertising of alcohol, the only consequence of which would be to stop lots of people being able to take part in sporting activities, which is presumably something the health lobby wants to encourage. The Minister for Sport and the Olympics reiterated that point when he stated:
	“I know both from my own experience of growing up playing sport in Kent and my work as a constituency MP that the sponsorship offered by alcohol companies to community sports clubs brings a considerable number of benefits, both financially and in kind. This allows sports clubs to reach out to more people or improve their offer in a way that would not otherwise be possible.”
	I object to the Bill in principle, but even the people who accept it in principle must recognise that it is completely unnecessary. It is a solution looking for a problem. Alcohol already cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18, so if my hon. Friend is concerned about young people drinking alcohol, surely the solution to the problem is to stop anyone selling it to them. That law already exists.
	The UK already has a comprehensive framework of regulation that makes the Bill completely unnecessary. The Advertising Standards Authority has an established regulatory system, the Portman Group provides its own code of practice and Ofcom regulates TV programme sponsorship. The current alcohol advertising rules were tightened in October 2005, in response to the alcohol harm reduction strategy, and they were reviewed again in 2008, taking into account the latest evidence commissioned by the Department of Health, and were subject to a full public consultation in 2009. The rules already state that adverts must not target under-18s; be shown around programmes that especially appeal to under-18s; link alcohol with seduction, sex or social success; link alcohol with irresponsible, anti-social, tough or daring behaviour; show alcohol being served irresponsibly; show people drinking and behaving in an adolescent or juvenile way or reflecting the culture of people under 18-years-old; or be shown in publications aimed at under-18s or where more than 25% of the readership is under 18.
	Additionally, alcohol adverts already cannot be shown around programmes popular with young people, such as “The Simpsons” and “Ugly Betty”, even if the programmes appear after 9 pm. The Portman Group also introduced a code in 1996 that regulates all drinks marketed in the UK through its code of practice on the naming, packaging and promotion of alcoholic drinks. Its code is so rigorous and highly regarded that the better regulation taskforce described it as a good example of how effective self-regulation can be, and the International Harm Reduction Association includes the code within its leading 50 global alcohol harm reduction initiatives.
	Furthermore, the aim of the Bill is not evidence-based. The argument is that it will reduce drinking levels among younger people, but that has not been proven by any research evidence. If any such impact did exist, it would be outweighed by other factors, such as the family environment. In fact, a study, “The Impact of Alcohol Marketing on Youth Drinking Behaviour”, found that
	“no association was found between uptake of drinking and baseline awareness of alcohol marketing or number of brands recalled at baseline…no association was found between uptake of monthly drinking at follow-up and baseline awareness of alcohol marketing”.
	Professor Hastings actually completed a longitudinal study to try to measure the impact of alcohol marketing on 13-year-olds in the west of Scotland. He found no association between awareness of alcohol marketing at age 13 and either the onset of drinking or the volume of alcohol consumed two years later. Surprisingly, that part of the study received very little publicity.
	The lack of evidence is also apparent if we look at international comparisons. Norway has strictly no advertising for alcoholic beverages, yet consumption has been steadily increasing. In Italy, where alcohol advertising is permitted, consumption is decreasing. France is also an interesting case, as it is the example on which my hon. Friend bases her Bill. The equivalent Loi Evin was introduced in France in 1991, but it has not had the intended consequences that she would have hoped for. Statistics from the World Health Organisation show that French alcohol consumption decreased from 18.46 litres per capita in 1981 to 14.88 litres in 1991. Since the Loi Evin was enacted, consumption has levelled off, dropping to only 13.24 litres, highlighting the fact that the legislation has had little, if any, impact.
	The Bill smacks of the nanny state and would set a dangerous precedent for future legislation. It would damage an already fragile amateur sporting club base without any evidence-based proof that such a change in the law would reduce youth alcohol consumption. There are less burdensome means by which we can reduce underage drinking, such as enforcing existing laws on the sale of alcohol to under-18s and to do what the Government should be doing, which is highlighting the health implications of drinking alcohol and allowing people to make up their own minds. In a free country, that is what we should believe in. This is a further extension of the nanny state to try to appease health zealots and fanatics who will never be appeased.
	Question  put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr Kevin Barron, Tracey Crouch, John Pugh, Stephen Gilbert, Paul Flynn, Mr David Amess, Chris Bryant, Kelvin Hopkins, Mike Wood, Anne Marie Morris and John McDonnell present the Bill.
	Dr Sarah Wollaston accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 176).

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 13 December 2010 (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.
	3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
	4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 First day 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and amendments to Clauses, and new Schedules and amendments to Schedules, relating to Part 1 6.00 pm 
			 New Clauses and amendments to Clauses, and new Schedules, relating to Clause 152 7.00 pm 
			 Second day 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and amendments to Clauses, and new Schedules, relating to Part 2 3.00 pm 
			 New Clauses and amendments to Clauses, and new Schedules and amendments to Schedules, relating to Part 3 and Clauses 149 to 151; remaining proceedings on Consideration 5.00 pm 
		
	
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	The programme motion allows two days of debate on the Bill. That was not sought, but the Government felt that it was right to offer it to give sufficient time for debate. We had eight days of debate in Committee and a full discussion of the issues. Having two days will allow police and crime commissioners to be debated. Time will be allowed specifically to debate universal jurisdiction, and tomorrow there will be time to debate alcohol, drugs and protest in Parliament square. The motion was revised to take into account the views of the Opposition expressed through the usual channels, so I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

Vernon Coaker: It would be churlish not to recognise the fact that the Government have provided an additional day’s debate. We are grateful for that. Notwithstanding the time we have, the problem is that the Bill raises so many issues that lack clarity, but no doubt we will debate them this afternoon. As I have said, however, we are grateful for the additional day, and it would be churlish not to recognise that fact.
	Question put and agreed to.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill  Committee

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Commencement of Part 1

‘The Secretary of State must not make an order to bring sections 1 to 103 of this Act into force until—
	(a) an inquiry by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary into the impact of the introduction of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales has been completed, and
	(b) the Secretary of State has considered the recommendations of that inquiry.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments 6 to 10, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 14.
	Amendment 134,clause 156, page102,line24, at end insert—
	‘(2A) Commencement of Part 1 of this Act is subject to Clause [Commencement of Part 1].’.
	Amendment 135,page102, leave out line 27.
	Government amendments 31 to 40, 135A, 136 to 138, 42, 50 and 51.

Vernon Coaker: It is very good to be reunited with many of the members of the Committee who did such sterling service upstairs. It falls to us now to scrutinise the Bill on Report, to consider the various improvements that the Government will seek to introduce and—from the Opposition’s perspective—to continue to point out the Bill’s various deficiencies.
	As hon. Members will have seen, new clause 4 states that the commencement order for clauses 1 to 103 should not be brought into force until an inquiry into the impact of the Government’s arrangements, which will be given effect in England and Wales by the Bill, has been completed. In other words, the provisions should not be brought into force until we have begun to understand what the impact of police and crime commissioners will be. Obviously, we would ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct the inquiry, and that before commencement the Home Secretary has to consider the recommendations. The Minister knows that we oppose the introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners, which constitute the major part of this part of the Bill, and we will continue to do so. I seek again to persuade hon. Members across the House of some of the deficiencies we see in the Bill, and hence of the need for us to calm down, row back and consider what is happening and what the Government are proposing.
	The Minister has provided no evidence of the need for the change. In fact, the responses to the policing and crime White Paper “Policing in the 21st Century” seem
	to be a mystery. After nearly 900 responses to the White Paper, all the Government did was publish a summary of them—they did not publish any of them. I challenge him again to publish all 900 responses. I have a sneaking suspicion that had those 900 responses been in favour of the introduction of police and crime commissioners, we would not have seen him for dust as he moved to publish them. He would have published them with a fanfare of glory, called a press conference and said to everyone, “Look, the introduction of police and crime commissioners supported by me, the Prime Minister and a couple of other people and whipped through the House of Commons is supported by these 900 people. No need for an inquiry. No need for anyone to be concerned.” However, he did not do that; he published a summary, on the grounds that it would be disproportionate to go further.
	The silence from those who support the Government’s proposal is deafening. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I have not had people queuing up outside my surgery, knocking on my door and telling me that the introduction of police and crime commissioners is one of the foremost policies they want introduced in their communities. No doubt, the Association of Police Authorities would be among those to whom HMIC would want to talk in its inquiry. However—and I hope that hon. Members have read the Committee deliberations—the Minister does not think that the APA is worth listening to, because obviously it would be opposed to anything that the Government put forward. Clearly, given that the Bill seeks to abolish police authorities, it is thought that there is not much point in listening to the APA.

Keith Vaz: I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments carefully. The new clause would put a lot of responsibility on HMIC. Does he feel that it has the resources to deal with what he would have it deal with? As we know, it published a report only yesterday on police numbers. Does he not think that if we give it this responsibility, it would need the resources to deal with it?

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, makes a reasonable point. Of course, there would be a resources issue for HMIC that the Government would need to consider, but given the importance of the reform that the Government are seeking to introduce, and given that the police themselves say that this would be the biggest change to the policing model in this country for centuries, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is incumbent on us to say to HMIC that we will ensure that it has the necessary resources.
	The Local Government Association—I do not know whether the Minister has a higher regard for it than for police authorities—is also totally opposed to the reform. It is difficult to find a single council that supports it. Surrey county council sometimes edges towards it, but it is difficult to find many others. I would have thought that if this were a great reform, the police would be coming forward and saying, “This will make a huge difference”, but of course they are not. The challenge, therefore, is to find the demand for the change. Local people are not demanding it, so who actually is? The Minister seems to be driven by a belief that he knows
	best. He accused others of being elitist, but if everybody is saying that the Government have got it wrong, there might be an element of truth in it.

Mark Reckless: The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of a council that supports the reform. My council—Medway council—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) is also a member, has supported the reforms, and our council leader, Rodney Chambers, has been a strong proponent, with me, of direct election for those who oversee our police. Surely the key thing, however, is that the electorate voted for it. The Lib Dems stood on a platform of direct election for police authorities, and we stood on one of directly elected commissioners. We now have this compromise involving a panel. The APA commissioned an opinion poll that showed that most people wanted direct election for those who oversaw the police.

Vernon Coaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the issue—there is one council in favour of the proposed changed across the country. However, I disagree absolutely with what he said about the electorate voting for this measure. The model in the Bill was not voted for by the majority of people. As he said, the model in the Liberal Democrat manifesto was completely different from the one in the Bill. He gave the game away when he said, “Of course, in the coalition agreement, there was a compromise”. Well, if there was a compromise, it obviously happened after the election, not during the election, so I do not think that anybody actually voted for this model.

Julian Huppert: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key issue is about having elected people looking after policing? That was the common ground between our two parties. The outcome was not exactly as we would have liked, but it was a balance between the two options. Does he further agree that there is a problem at the moment, in that police authorities do not represent those on district councils? District councils do not have a direct input. In fact, does he think that police authorities, as they currently are, work well at all?

Vernon Coaker: I do not think that police authorities are as bad as they are portrayed. There is some variation among them, but many do a reasonable job. Perhaps they are not as visible as they might be, and perhaps people do not understand exactly what they do, but people such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who sits on the Kent police authority, do a good job.
	As for elections, let us say this. We can come forward with different models for this election or that election. However, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have heard me say in Committee, whatever the arguments about direct elections, the Government’s model is at totally the wrong level of accountability. I do not get people queuing up at my surgeries to say, “Do you know what, Mr Coaker? Nottinghamshire police’s counter-terrorism strategy”—or its fraud strategy or trafficking policy—“is wrong.” People come to my surgery to say, “Mr Coaker, we’re absolutely fed up with the kids at the end of our street,” or, “We’re totally fed up with the drug dealing going on from cars in a car park down the road.” I am sure that that is true for most hon. Members.
	That neighbourhood, street-level accountability is what people want, which is why, to be fair to the hon. Member for Cambridge, his party proposed elections at a very local level. Whether that was the right model or the wrong model, if we are looking at where we need to strengthen accountability arrangements, it is precisely at that neighbourhood and street level where we need to do so. We can have neighbourhood policing, community meetings, beat meetings, and so on—all the things that have happened in a calm and measured way, and which have made such a difference to confidence at that level.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have discussed that idea in another venue, along with how important ultra-local policing is and how it is different from governance at a higher level. However, I am trying to understand where he is heading. In Committee he proposed directly elected chairs of police authorities, so I am glad that he now prefers the Lib Dem model—I do not remember him saying that before the election, but it is nice to hear that he is moving our way. Why does he think that having a directly elected chair of a panel would be so different from having a single directly elected person who would also act across a whole area?

Vernon Coaker: We are opposed to directly elected police and crime commissioners as set out in the Bill. Having said that, the Bill will presumably go through—unless Government Members vote against their own Whip—so then what should we do? The proper and responsible thing to do is to acknowledge that fact and propose another model—the hon. Gentleman will have seen our amendments. If we are to have a directly elected individual, then as well as saying that we are opposed to that in principle, what we as a responsible Opposition should do is say how we would improve it. The amendment that we moved in Committee—the hon. Gentleman knows this, but I am repeating it for the benefit of other Members—would have made that directly elected individual the chair of the police and crime panel, and thereby would have introduced proper checks and balances in the system.
	The proposal that we are putting before the House today offers another way forward. What we are saying is, “Keep them as two distinct entities”—that is, have a police and crime commissioner as a figurehead, but also have a police and crime panel with significantly enhanced powers. These are all things that, with a proper inquiry and proper research, we could check to see whether they might be more appropriate, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman this. If he was stood where I am and he was opposed to something that the Government of the day were doing, he would say that he was opposed to it, but he would also seek to improve and adapt it, to take some of the edge off. That is what we did in Committee and that is what we are doing now.
	It is not just the Opposition; hon. Members will no doubt have read Lord Imbert, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and a former commissioner, setting out his opposition in The Times today. He will not be alone, although it is easier for him, as a non-serving police officer and a noble Lord, to say why he is opposed. He says:
	“If passed unamended, this Bill will undermine”
	the policing model that we have had in this country for years,
	“threatening the crucial political independence and non-partisanship of the police and the Rule of Law itself.”
	Yesterday, Liberty published the results of a survey conducted on its behalf by YouGov, which showed the lack of public trust in elected police commissioners. In answer to the question “Who would you trust more to protect your family from crime?”, 65% chose “A Chief Constable reporting to a Police Authority, as now” as their preferred option. “A Chief Constable reporting to an individual politician elected as a Police and Crime Commissioner” was the preferred option of just 15%. Just to show that that goes across the length and breadth of the country, I found out that a survey had been conducted in Hampshire showing that only 5% of the public there support having a single elected police and crime commissioner.
	That is just the sort of evidence that any inquiry would have to look at. However, the Government’s response is simply to stand back and pretend that those people are all dinosaurs who would inevitably say that, because they are looking to protect their own interests, when in fact they are trying to say to the Government, “You need to slow down a bit and look at the consequences of what you’re trying to do.” All the Minister says is, “We believe it’s the right thing to do.” I have said to him before that, with respect, simply asserting that something is the case is not the same as arguing the case. Where is the evidence for this change to policing, which will make such a fundamental difference to governance arrangements?

Michael Ellis: Does the hon. Gentleman recall saying when he was Police Minister:
	“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical,”
	and if so, did he have any evidence for saying that?

Vernon Coaker: The model of policing governance that we were considering at that time was exactly the sort of model that I was describing to the hon. Member for Cambridge. We were looking to see whether direct elections at a neighbourhood and local level would lead to improved governance arrangements, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. When all those people lined up to oppose the idea, I took the view—as did the Home Secretary at the time—that if everybody opposed something that we were trying to do, we should sometimes step back and reflect on whether we had got it wrong and whether, in all honesty, we should change direction. Some say that that is a sign of weakness or not knowing what we are doing, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot propose to do something, have a public consultation and then say, “We don’t care what the public consultation says. If we disagree, we’re not going to take any notice.” What the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) described was something that was proposed at the time to deal with governance issues, but it was also something that we withdrew because we listened to what people were saying.
	We could look at other issues, but I will leave the evidence there. Any inquiry that HMIC conducted would need to consider a range of other matters, but the Minister—and others on the Committee, given that we did not manage to carry the day—had no concerns
	about politicisation. We will come later to the debate on operational independence and the code of practice—it was a memorandum of understanding, but it has now become a protocol. Whatever: the serious point is that, given that the Government have agreed to the protocol, they must be worried that having a directly elected individual who is responsible for policing in an area risks politicising the role of chief constable. Many people have raised that issue at great length with us.
	There are real worries about the issue, again dismissed by the Government, but if somebody is elected and has a mandate in a particular area, what will the nature of that mandate be and who will decide how that area ought to be policed? The Association of Chief Police Officers, which is concerned about the lack of checks and balances in the proposed model, released a statement yesterday saying that
	“our professional judgment is that an effective framework of safeguards is essential to improving the Government’s ambition without creating substantial threat to the impartiality of police officers making decisions, such as the deployment of resources. Our professional view is that creating effective safeguards for such a radically different accountability regime is extremely challenging. In any event, the developing framework of safeguards is too undeveloped and uncertain, and in several respects too weak, to be confident that it will effectively ensure that this Peelian principle”—
	the Peelian principle to which the association referred before—
	“will not be compromised.”
	That is a fairly strong statement from the most senior police officers in this country about the lack of checks and balances, and about their concerns regarding politicisation in the Bill.

Mark Reckless: ACPO, the hon. Gentleman tells us, has suggested that there are issues with checks and balances in the new system, but is not the real issue in the current system, with the lack of checks and balances on both the Home Office and the chief constable, and with the weakness of the police authority leg of the tripartite process? Is it not right that we do something, such as introduce direct elections as proposed in the Bill, to bolster the power of that third, local, democratic pillar?

Vernon Coaker: Nobody has said that the existing system is absolutely flawless or does not need improving. I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge that it is important for police authorities to improve their visibility, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that we are discussing the Government’s proposals for the future. If ACPO tells us that the Bill’s checks and balances are simply too weak, should we not then say, “We need to look at this, think about it and try to understand what we should do to further improve the system that we want”?
	The Minister gets very upset when I say this, but I am going to say it again. The police and crime panels are one way in which the police and crime commissioner is supposed to be held to account, but the panel is a completely toothless watchdog with no real power. It has two vetoes: one on appointments, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood knows, but only with a three-quarters majority; and the other on the precept, in
	respect of which the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, but again with a three-quarters majority. That is it.
	The Minister will say, “The panel has to be consulted, referred to and involved,” but how can it be right that there will be a police and crime commissioner, without anybody able to do anything about what he does, providing obviously that what he does is within the law?
	Then we come to the huge number of representations about the size of the area that that one person will have to cover. Again, the Government do not think this is a problem. They say, “Oh, there’s no problem with this; it’s fine,” but there is no evidence to support that, and that is why the House should adopt the new clause so that we may have an inquiry and the HMIC can look into the matter.
	The Welsh Local Government Association points out that the system in Wales works very well, and it does not believe that replacing between 17 and 19 members of the individual police authorities in Wales
	“with a single elected commissioner will…improve public accountability of the police”.
	The association does not believe that one individual can properly reflect all
	“the divergent communities that exist in police force areas”,
	and it cites the huge area of Dyfed Powys, where one individual will cover the whole area.
	We can cite other examples. The Avon and Somerset area covers 1,855 square miles, from Thornbury to Yeovil to Minehead. It has a population of 1.6 million and large rural areas such as Exmoor, major urban areas such as Bristol and Bath and significant market towns. One individual will represent all those areas. That police authority area and one or two others that I will mention across the country all point out the difficulty, and we should listen to them.

Simon Hart: As the only representative from the Dyfed Powys area here, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that there is very little connection between the voters in our area and the general policing priorities? The indication that I get, which I wonder whether he agrees with, is that an elected police commissioner for the Dyfed Powys area is in fact likely to bring us closer to the policing process, rather than removing us from it. That is the feeling that I, as the only representative from the area that the shadow Minister cites, get.

Vernon Coaker: I do not see any evidence for that at all, and there have been no such representations. On the situation that the hon. Gentleman mentions, people in Dyfed Powys, in other parts of Wales and throughout the country have a problem getting police at a neighbourhood level to deal with the issues that they think are important, and that is why in Dyfed Powys and other areas throughout the country, through the introduction of neighbourhood policing, panel meetings and town and village hall meetings, people want accountability improved at that very level. I fail to understand how one individual representing that huge area will be able to do that. The hon. Gentleman knows the area far better than I do, but how will somebody in
	St David’s, in that beautiful part of the country, know about that and then be able to compare it with something 40 or 50 miles away?
	We talked about moving an amendment in Committee to require this one individual to attend all the parish and ward meetings in an area, so that they really had local and detailed knowledge. These are huge issues, and one person will simply not be able to do the work. Police authority after police authority has made that point to us.

Matthew Offord: I was fortunate enough to sit in Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he recalls the evidence given on 19 January by Ian Loader, a professor of criminology from All Souls college, who said:
	“We have gone through a decade or so of trying to run the police from 10 Downing street, and a broad move to try to reorganise the police under the rubric of local democratic accountability seems to me to be important.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2011; c. 47, Q 5858.]
	That runs exactly counter to the hon. Gentleman’s argument now.

Vernon Coaker: My point is that the system the Government are seeking to introduce will not deliver the improved accountability that we want. The hon. Gentleman does not agree, as I said in Committee, but, to return to the point I was making, at least he has tried to use a piece of evidence—a small piece, but a piece none the less. Where is the massive amount of evidence that contradicts all the evidence that I have brought forward? The Government made great play of evidence-based policy when they came into power, and the main driver of our new clause is that an HMIC inquiry would allow policing experts to collect evidence to understand whether these improved governance arrangements would lead to the improved accountability that we all want.
	The Devon and Cornwall, Cumbria, West Midlands and Greater Manchester police authorities all say that one person in charge of policing in their area will mean far too much work.

Michael Ellis: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a good piece of evidence is the fact that such a system is already working in London?

Vernon Coaker: First, if the system in London was working so well, why would the Government want to change it? Secondly, the change that the Government are making is to a completely different system from that which operates at the moment. The Metropolitan Police Authority is being abolished. The person who, through primary legislation, is going to be put in charge of policing in London through the Mayor’s office for policing and crime will be an unelected individual appointed by the Mayor of London. They will not be a directly elected individual as per the rest of the country, but an appointee of the Mayor following the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The hon. Gentleman asked why, if the system works so well, we should not expand it to the rest of the country. If the system in London is working so well, why are the Government changing it? Why not just leave it as it is? We are not
	changing the system in London to that in the rest of the country—we are completely changing the system in London to another system.
	The inquiry would also need to look at the arrangements between a police and crime commissioner and the local democratic framework. One of the great successes of the current policing arrangements has been the introduction of the neighbourhood policing model, with the development of community safety partnerships in Wales and crime and disorder reduction partnerships in other parts of the country. Those arrangements have brought together all the various partners at a local level in order to try to tackle crime and improve confidence. The police and crime commissioner is not a responsible authority under the terms of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
	What, then, is the relationship of the police and crime commissioner with the police and crime panel? Again, we do not understand that, and the Bill is unclear about it. I have referred to the complete lack of power that a police and crime panel has, leaving an omnipotent individual in charge of policing. Police and crime panels will have one person from each local authority—if there are not 10 authorities, we can make up the number with another couple—and a couple of independent members. If there are more than 10 local authorities, we can have a few more so that we stick to the basis of one person per authority. There is no reference to how many people might be in that local authority area or to its size—the reference is just to one person per authority, so it could be a tiny district council and a massive local authority area. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned Northumbria, which is a huge area covered by one council and a very small, highly populated area covered by another.

Julian Huppert: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that under the current system district councils such as Cambridge city council have no representation on the police authority at all?

Vernon Coaker: That is a fair point. We can, of course, make changes and improvements to the current system. However, the point is that we are introducing police and crime panels when we have not had a proper debate about what their constitution should be; we have merely said there should be one member per authority. The size of the district council area in terms of population is not mentioned. These are clearly things that we need to understand.
	We have had numerous representations from people saying that they are concerned about this. Cumbria and Surrey police have expressed their reservations. Cheshire—I do not know if there is anyone here from Cheshire, but I might as well go round the country—says that the police and crime commissioner
	“must be able to influence relevant partners if their Police and Crime Plan is to be effective in delivering improvements in community safety and crime reduction. However, if the PCC is not a ‘responsible authority’ they have no statutory role and could, therefore, be ignored.”
	That is a serious flaw in the Bill that the Minister needs to address.
	Another aspect that members of the Committee reflected on, as would many others, is the cost of the introduction of police and crime commissioners. That will be a
	particularly important area for HMIC to look at. Different police authorities across the country tell us that there will be a significant cost involved. A police and crime commissioner will have people supporting them—a chief finance officer, a chief executive and other staff. A police and crime panel will presumably need resources to be able to carry out its function properly. A chief constable will become a corporation sole—in other words, a legal entity—and able, unless the Bill is amended as the Liberals tried to do, not only to control staff but own property and assets and so will presumably need more staff to be able to do that.
	The Association of Police Authorities said in a submission to us in January this year:
	“Independent analysis suggests that the cost of the proposed reforms of police governance over the 5 years…will be a minimum of £453million. That is £101million more than the entire cost of running police authorities during the same period, and the equivalent to the removal of over 600 police officers.”
	The Minister has stated that the new governance model should not cost any more than the current model, excluding, as he will no doubt say in his reply, election costs, but again, nobody out there accepts or believes that that will really be the case. Yesterday’s HMIC report showed that only 5% of police officers and police community support officers are in back-office roles. In looking into this, the HMIC will be interested to know what the costs are of the new governance arrangements, given that the police service finds itself facing 20% cuts from central Government. It will want to know whether this model will be real value for money. Will it add to the policing effectiveness in an area, or will the fact that 95% of police officers and/or PCSOs are not in back-office roles be threatened by its introduction? These are all huge issues with respect to the introduction of police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels.
	I will finish by going back to where I started. This reform is based on an ideologically driven, philosophical desire to introduce police and crime commissioners in an untested, untried way, with no evidence, because the Minister and No. 10 believe that it will improve the effectiveness of policing in this country. I say to the Minister again: publish the evidence that shows that to be the case. There is none apart from that from the odd—I do not mean that in a disrespectful way—council and one or two individuals. This is a hugely significant change. The Local Government Association, the Association of Police Authorities, chief constables, police officers, communities, individuals and many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House see this as a deeply worrying reform. The Minister needs to argue his case rather than simply assert it. I commend new clause 4 to the House.

Julian Huppert: rose —

Paul Murphy: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Members have to stand if they want to speak—bobbing up and down like this does not help me. I call Julian Huppert.

Julian Huppert: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being confusing; I was trying to be helpful.
	It is a pleasure in many ways to continue the work that we did on the Bill Committee with many right hon. and hon. Members whom I see around the Chamber. These are slightly larger, grander surroundings than those in which we had our last, rather extensive, discussions.

Michael Ellis: But about the same number of people.

Julian Huppert: Indeed. We have had a fair discussion in Committee, and I am glad that we are continuing it.
	The shadow Minister spoke about a desire for delay, and I can understand why he sees that as his role. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the detailed points that he made. I was rather touched by the shadow Minister’s comment about how I would behave if I were in his position. He did not make it clear whether that was in a scenario where the Labour party had completely collapsed and was now a minor party, whether that had happened to the Conservatives, or whether there was a Labour-Conservative coalition. I am sure he can comment on that later.
	I want in particular to speak about Government amendment 14, which deals with a rather detailed point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). It is a great pleasure to see him in his place. He spotted that lines 4 and 16 on page 22, in clause 30, did not quite fit together—that there was a drafting error. That led to an interesting discussion in which we genuinely explored some ideas—I think we all learned a lot—about what should be the process for suspending a police and crime commissioner, the standards and thresholds and the effects of such a suspension. There is an interesting balance to be struck as regards what should happen. The amendment corrects the drafting error and leaves the provision that a commissioner may be suspended by the panel—I emphasise that the term used is “may” rather than “must”—if charged with an offence that could lead to a term in prison of greater than two years.
	Is the balance right? First, the position of police and crime commissioner is very responsible and we would not want to see a holder of it being seriously investigated for a major crime, which would put them in a position that would simply be untenable in the public eye. On the one hand, one could suggest that we should bring the threshold lower and lower until, if we want to be absolutely sure, they would be suspended if they were accused of anything. I think that would be going too far, and I shall come up with a suggestion on that point a bit later.
	The flip side of the argument, however, is that such a commissioner has been charged, not convicted. There is a clear difference and a clear principle. Members on both sides of the House mentioned in Committee that we should not punish people excessively based on the fact that they have been charged. There is the principle of innocent until proven guilty that still applies to most public law—I shall avoid talking about terrorist offences on this occasion. Clause 30(3) says that during a suspension period, a commissioner does not draw their salary, their pensions or their allowances. That is a punishment, in effect.
	We had a number of discussions in Committee and the Liberal Democrats have had some discussions about our proposals on the way forward. We have also discussed that with the Minister. There is the question of what offences we wish to catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West gave a number of examples of offences that would not be covered by the rules for the possible suspension in the context of offences with sentences greater than two years. I shall not go through every example, but they included racially or religiously aggravated assault or harassment, and I think we would have concerns about a police and crime commissioner who was charged with that. Other similar offences include aggravated vehicle taking, causing damage to property and causing injury. Vehicle taking without consent has a sentence of six months, as does assault on a police constable, as my hon. Friend pointed out. One would have great concerns if a police and crime commissioner was being charged with assaulting police constables, particularly on a regular basis. That would suggest that the relationship was not working
	We must work out what to do. Our proposal—I hope that the Government will respond to it and will consider it as a way forward, and I look forward to hearing any other contributions—is that the period should be brought down from two years to six months, as suggested in the amendment originally proposed by my hon. Friend. It should be specified that the charge should be carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service—by a prosecutor—rather than a police officer, as they have powers to charge in some circumstances. We do not want police constables to be able to get at a commissioner with whom they disagree over some issue.
	The flip side of bringing the threshold down to give greater public certainty is that there should be no loss of pay, no loss of pension and no loss of other allowances that would be incurred in the job—the person might not be doing that job during that period, but there might be some ongoing costs. That would avoid excessive punishment while providing public certainty that a prominent figure in such an area was not under a cloud and could not get out from under it.
	There should also be a provision, regardless of the threshold, for the commissioner to be able effectively to suspend themselves and to say that there is an allegation against—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing quite a narrow set of amendments? I am not sure that he is on the point of what we are discussing now—that is, the new clause and the amendments that are being debated and have been selected.

Julian Huppert: I was speaking about Government amendment 14, which I think is in this group.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning—and this is my understanding—that that is a drafting amendment and a correction, yet he seems to be making rather a substantial point of debate. If the Government have accepted a change by tabling their own drafting amendment, it normally follows that it is quite minor. That was why I asked him.

Julian Huppert: I had almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do shortly. There was an interesting debate in Committee about whether we wanted just to correct the drafting order or to go further—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. With respect, people can read the Hansardreportof the Committee. I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. I think he has come to the main point of what he wants to say, so if he could now conclude on that point it would be helpful.

Julian Huppert: I am happy to do so. I hope that the Government will consider what I have said as well as the self-suspension ideas.

Paul Murphy: I support new clause 4, the case for which was so powerfully made, characteristically, by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that the House will divide on it.
	I support the idea of deferring the commencement of part 1. Later, there might be the opportunity to debate my amendment, which would exempt Wales from part 1, but this is an opportunity to reflect on a less drastic course of action—that is, the deferral of the commencement of the Bill. There are one or two reasons for that and I hope that the House will bear with me as I set them out.
	Not very long ago, the National Assembly for Wales took the unprecedented decision not to give legislative consent to part 1. That, in my experience—which goes back a few years in such matters—is entirely unprecedented. It has never happened before. As a consequence, the Communities and Culture Committee of the National Assembly has asked for the deferment of part 1. Its headline recommendation reads:
	“We recommend that the Welsh Government has dialogue with the UK Government to persuade it to defer introducing those aspects of the bill related to the abolition of Police Authorities, and establishment of Police Commissioners and Police Crime Panels in Wales, at least until the effectiveness of their impact in England has been assessed.”
	That is not a million miles away from new clause 4, which asks for the deferral of the commencement until such an assessment has been made by HMIC. That is why I support the new clause.
	Policing, as the Minister will know, is not devolved in Wales, although it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it is different in Wales from in England. I cannot see any evidence that there has been any sort of negotiation, discussion or proper Government-to-Government relationship on the issue of policing in Wales in so far as part 1 is concerned. There might have been, and doubtless the Minister will let us know when he winds up.
	In Wales, there is a rather different relationship between the Welsh Local Government Association—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has already referred and which, incidentally, is not in Labour’s hands but is controlled by independents and non-Labour Members—police authorities in Wales, of which there are four, and the Welsh Assembly Government. That relationship is very special because it touches on a working partnership arrangement between the police authorities in Wales and the National Assembly that is unique in the United Kingdom. It seems proper to me to repeat the arguments used in Wales by local government, by the police authorities, by the National Assembly and
	by the Welsh Assembly Government to ask for the commencement of part 1 to be deferred. One chief reason those bodies ask for the deferment is the fact that there are rather different financial arrangements in Wales for policing. Half of Welsh police forces get their money from the Welsh Assembly.
	In addition, the proposals for police commissioners will inevitably be very expensive, as my hon. Friend said. I understand that only £30,000 per police force will go towards meeting the gap in paying the salary of the police commissioners and paying for police and crime panels. Over the next few years, Wales faces a reduction in its funding through the Barnett formula of nearly £2 billion. It is absolutely daft to introduce such highly expensive measures in Wales when, frankly, there is no appetite for them.
	I read in the Official Report of the Public Bill Committee that the Minister said that there was evidence that in 2008 only 7% of people in England knew what police authorities did. There is a counter-issue in Wales, where a survey that was taken much more recently than 2008 indicated that 82% of Welsh people knew precisely what police authorities did. That is because in Wales, we are different and we are smaller.
	The final point that I wish to make—I know that other Members want to speak—is that the decision by the Assembly not to give legislative consent to part 1 of the Bill and the decision by a major Committee of the Assembly to ask for deferment of the commencement of the Bill place this decision on a rather different level: it is now about the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. A day or so after the general election, the Prime Minister came to Wales and talked about a respect agenda, in which he would respect the views of the devolved Administrations in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. It seems to me that there is little respect in this measure, unless we can get a positive indication from the Minister that there will be a deferment of part 1 as far as Wales is concerned. If that is not the case, I suggest to the Minister that the Welsh Assembly Government will invoke the Joint Ministerial Committee, which is in place to ensure that disputes are resolved between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. Otherwise, in addition to what I think is a deeply flawed measure, there will be an issue between two Governments in the United Kingdom, which we definitely do not want.

Simon Hart: I will restrict my comments to the impact of elected commissioners in west Wales, an area that has been referred to already. My comments are driven not by ideology, as some have suggested, but by my practical experience of the area, the reaction of police officers both junior and senior, and, perhaps even more importantly, the reaction of members of the public.
	The context to this debate is the ongoing consultation about the future of the coastguard. One might wonder what the connection is, but it is simply that around Milford Haven—the important waterway that divides the constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire from Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire—there is an enormous local attachment to and affection for that emergency service, which might not immediately appear to be an
	emergency service. Our community is proud of it, feels that it is part of it, and feels that it owns it. It is part of the fabric and architecture of the community. People in the community know only too well that if they pick up the telephone, they will get a trustworthy and local response to what are often traumatic problems.
	The reason why I paint that little contextual picture is that Dyfed Powys police, to whom the shadow Minister referred, cover a vast and diverse area. The Minister is not entirely unfamiliar with the area. The police force is not devoted purely, as some would flippantly suggest, to sheep rustling and stolen quad bikes. One in seven terrorist incidents in the UK have a connection to our constabulary. It has the onerous responsibility of looking after the UK’s most important energy hub in Milford Haven, which has two refineries, two liquefied natural gas terminals, and the biggest gas-fired power station under construction in Europe. It is an important strategic area, which our stretched police force has to look after. That is the reason for the great connection with the local community, which I would argue is not enhanced under the current arrangements, but would be enhanced under the proposed arrangements.
	Opposition Members may argue that I am simply trotting out the ideological prose as laid out by my elders and betters, but I consulted just three people in preparing the comments that I am about to make: two police constables currently serving in the Dyfed Powys force, and one rather more senior officer with whom I had a conversation at the weekend. The local police authority has—reasonably, sensibly and in a measured fashion—repeated the concerns that the shadow Minister articulated.
	The two police constables, without any provocation, said to me, “At long last we’ll be able to do the job that we originally joined up to do.” I pushed them on this point, and their responses entirely endorse the Government’s proposals. They endorse, welcome and encourage the involvement of the local community. The crime panels, which are not directly related to new clause 4, will provide the accountability that some suggest is missing. The involvement of local authorities and elected individuals who are accountable to their wards and regions is a crucial piece of this jigsaw. As was said by two police constables and a more senior officer, whose rank I cannot reveal lest I give away his identity, that involvement will lead to improved prioritisation, which is in the community’s interests; improved cost effectiveness, which is vital in the Dyfed Powys force; and improved customer satisfaction—a phrase I hesitate to use.
	In discussing cost and budget reductions in the coming weeks and months, the senior officer was certain that Dyfed Powys police could maintain a decent police force that would safeguard the interests of the community and businesses. However, he said that it would be different. It will not smell the same, and in many regards there will be an entirely different form of policing from what we have been used to. That does not mean that it will compromise the safety of the community or that crime will rise. Those ideas are being bandied about irresponsibly by mischief makers. The changes do not mean for one minute that people will sleep less safely in their beds; quite the opposite. There is a realistic recognition that things have to change, that they will change and that
	they will look different, but that those changes will guarantee a reasonable cost-effective police force for our community.
	Only this morning in Prime Minister’s questions, as Members will recall, there was a suggestion that the proposals will compromise safety and the interests of the communities and the many businesses that rely on police protection—particularly in Milford Haven. I really would urge caution, because that is not the case. It is irresponsible for Opposition Members to bandwagon, to make political statements and to suggest that the proposals will damage the safety of our communities.
	The House need not take this point from a lowly Member who represents a distant part of west Wales that most Members, I regret to say, have probably never heard of. As evidence, I put to the Minister the impassioned pleas of two police constables and a senior officer in one of the forces that will be most affected by the proposals. They say that there is nothing to fear, and that with a reasoned approach and a sensible balanced debate we can produce an outcome that is in the interests not only of the Treasury, which always lurks somewhere in the shadows of these debates, but of our communities, which have such great affection for their police forces, upon which they so permanently and reasonably depend.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who rightly put the debate in the context of what is happening locally in his constituency. Every right hon. and hon. Member can talk about the local impact of the changes that the Government are making, but I will concentrate my remarks on new clause 4, and particularly on the desire of Opposition Front Benchers that there should be an impact study of the Government’s proposals before they are put in place.
	The Government have embarked on a very ambitious and challenging policing agenda. I have just finished reading the speech that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made on Monday, and he used in it the memorable words:
	“Reform cannot wait; we do not have the luxury of delay while a committee of wise men”—
	slightly politically incorrect—
	“deliberate and eventually agree to differ.”
	I am not sure whether the Home Secretary would compose a committee of that type, but what the Minister was saying was that the Government want to get on with reform.
	Those of us who serve on the Home Affairs Committee have been pretty exhausted by the amount of proposed legislation and the changes that the Government have brought into effect since last May. However, one would expect that from a Government who took office after 13 years in opposition. Of course Ministers, particularly the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who I know has a passion for the debate on policing, want the Government to get on with what they want to do.

Michael Ellis: Was the right hon. Gentleman not also exhausted by the 13 years of the previous Government and their 10 criminal justice Bills and 3,000 new criminal offences?

Keith Vaz: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has recently joined the Home Affairs Committee, that I was totally exhausted. That was why I hoped we would have a little break when the new Government got into office. Members of the Committee who are in their places today—my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and indeed the hon. Gentleman himself when he is freed from the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, on which he is currently sitting—know that the change is rapid. I therefore have some sympathy with the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal that there ought to be an impact study.
	However, I am not absolutely convinced that the best organisation to perform the impact study is Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will convince me of that by the time we get to the Division Lobby. I am not sure where that organisation will fit in the new landscape of policing. If my hon. Friend believes for one moment that a report by HMIC, even though it is under the distinguished leadership of Sir Denis O’Connor, will unite the House or provide the basis for moving forward, he can look at what happened to the report that it published yesterday. Opposition Front Benchers accepted it, but I caught a glimpse of the Minister on the BBC yesterday, and he did not necessarily accept the report. He may or may not have accepted part of it, but as we all know, he certainly did not accept that front-line policing would be affected. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister’s views on that today.
	My plea is that the enormous reform and challenging agenda ought perhaps to pause for a short while, to allow Parliament to consider in even greater detail what the Government are proposing. The Home Affairs Committee has published a report on police commissioners. We did not comment on the idea, because we took it as read that the Government wished to introduce them, depending on the outcome of the Bill, which has yet to be finally voted upon. We examined the implications of what the Government planned to do once the commissioners were in place. I am glad to see that the Government have accepted a number of the points that we made, particularly about clarifying the relationship between the commissioners and the chief constables. We will discuss that in a later debate.
	My concern is that we are not stopping and thinking clearly enough, even if we might want to go in the direction that the Government suggest. The Home Affairs Committee examined the need for a study of the proposals, and obviously the most appropriate body to make one would have been the Committee itself. However, we have been rushing to deal with each piece of Government legislation as quickly as we possibly can. I am not sure that HMIC should produce the study, though.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was one of the best Ministers in the last Government, and when he left the Home Office he had gained a huge reputation for what he had done. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that when the previous Government introduced radical changes they asked HMIC for an impact study or paused to allow other bodies to conduct inquiries. I can well remember, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, a proposal from the then Home Secretary to replace police committees. Then, all
	of a sudden, we received a letter saying that the Government had changed their mind, having accepted in full our recommendations on the subject. There is a danger in picking the wrong organisation to undertake the study. The point that I believe my hon. Friend is trying to make in new clause 4, which is the right point to make, is that we should stop and consider the matter, not that we should necessarily delay it.
	In his speech on Monday, in the section on reform, the Minister was clear that he rejected the idea of a royal commission. He quoted Harold Wilson as saying that royal commissions are agreed in minutes and take years. But the process need not necessarily take that long. The Minister has a close view of the nature of policing, and the Home Affairs Committee has started a new inquiry, which I hope will not last longer than our previous policing inquiry. We hope that it will last about four months. We will examine the nature of the new landscape and take on board what the public want and need.
	In his speech the Minister also spoke about the need for the people, not the Government, to run the police force—he was citing the views of Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. There are many stakeholders, including the Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the superintendents, the public and many others, and they all need to be consulted on the changes.
	Because of the background to the discussion, which we all accept is a cut of 20% in police finances—I mean that we all accept that that is the background, not that we all accept the cut—this is a very difficult time for the police service. I am sure the Minister will not accept new clause 4, but we are looking for words from him that will show that the Government understand the need to pause. Perhaps there is not a need for a royal commission lasting years and years, but there is a real need for a debate about what policing means to ordinary people. That would be extremely helpful, including to the Home Affairs Committee in its current deliberations.
	We have not started our report yet, but we hope to have it ready by the end of July. We hope that it will give the Minister the opportunity to fashion his new landscape not from the top downwards, but starting with the public and moving upwards. Sometimes we worry a little too much about chief constables and the people right at the top, and not enough about the police constables. That is why it is was so interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire said. It is the bobby on the beat, the neighbourhood police officer, on whom the policing reforms will have an impact. Let us start with them and move upwards, rather than start at the top and move down.

Nick Herbert: First, I apologise to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for exhausting him. I look forward, of course, to his inquiry. I very much hope that he will invite me to give oral evidence, but that is entirely a matter for him and his Committee. I am sure that the Home Office will submit written evidence, but of course I welcome the inquiry, as I have welcomed all his reports since he assumed the chairmanship.
	It seems to me that the purpose of new clause 4 is to delay the enactment of the important part of the Bill that will create directly elected police and crime commissioners. That has been expressed pretty openly. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) was explicit about the fact that he sought that for Wales, so I will seek to address that point.
	As I argued in my speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on Monday, which is on my website and which I am happy to send to any hon. Member—I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East for quoting it—I do not believe that there is time for delay, because the changes that we need to make to policing are urgent. The democratic deficit must be addressed, and there is a need to drive savings at local level more strongly than they have been driven before. We therefore need to undertake this reform.
	Furthermore, if the Government signal any kind of delay now, which the Government emphatically do not wish to do, we would create uncertainty, at a time when, subject to the further deliberations of the House and the other place, others outside are preparing in the expectation that the Bill will become law—the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill—and that the first elections for police and crime commissioners will take place in 2012.
	The Home Office has a transition board, which I chair, which includes all parties, including ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. Those parties may not have proposed the Government’s measure, and they may not be wholly happy with it, but they nevertheless sensibly recognise that it makes sense to sit down and discuss how the changes should be put into place.
	I want to emphasise that although the Government are determined to proceed with the Bill and its reform, we have listened. I hope the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) accepts that we listened in Committee, when I believe we had a constructive debate. We also listened to those outside—important views have been put to us—and to the Home Affairs Committee. We will come to debate what the Committee describes as the memorandum of understanding to protect operational independence—we call it a protocol—but we agree that it is a good idea.
	We also listened to ACPO’s concerns on ensuring that strategic policing is addressed despite the greater localisation expressed in the Bill. As a consequence, the Bill provides for the strategic policing requirement. We have also strengthened the powers of police and crime panels. The Government have listened and sought to address concerns, but we nevertheless remain committed to the introduction of police and crime commissioners, with the first elections in May 2012, although we could move sooner in London, which already has a Mayor.
	The right hon. Member for Torfaen referred to the National Assembly for Wales Communities and Culture Committee request for a deferment of the provisions and asked whether the Government have held discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government. I must reassure him that, right from the beginning, we have sought such discussions and to respect the devolved arrangements in Wales. I have met the Minister responsible, as has the Home Secretary, and our officials have had a great deal of discussion.
	The Assembly Government have made it clear that they do not favour police and crime commissioners, but of course, policing is a reserved matter, and the House of Commons has decided that police and crime commissioners should apply in England and Wales—that is what the Bill says. The question is whether we can find arrangements that respect those aspects of the devolution settlement that are within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. We sought to do that through the legislative consent motion that we tabled, which we will shortly debate further.
	I very much regret that the Welsh Assembly did not pass that motion, but I repeat that we have at all times sought to address the Welsh Assembly Government’s proper concern, while recognising that it is equally proper that the House of Commons decides on that reserved matter. Saying that we must always follow a request from the devolved Parliament or one of the Assemblies for a deferment is tantamount to saying that the matter is no longer reserved. For so long as the matter is reserved, I believe that the right decisions have been taken.

Paul Murphy: I remind the Minister that things are not quite as simple as saying that policing is reserved. Policing is of course reserved, but aspects of the Bill touch on matters that are not reserved. Local government, which is wholly resolved in Wales, has a huge role to play on the panels, so it is not quite as simple as he says it is. There is more room for negotiation with the Welsh Assembly Government on those very important matters.

Nick Herbert: I absolutely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Local government matters are not reserved and local government touches on the panels, but that is precisely why we negotiated the legislative consent motion. It is deeply unfortunate that despite the fact that I negotiated that motion with the Minister responsible, Carl Sargeant, and he agreed it, he did not vote for it. As I said at the time, I regret that, because it was self-defeating. The motion sought to put in place the special arrangements for police and crime panels in Wales, on which the Welsh Assembly Government would have representation. I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we really tried to reach an arrangement and to respect the devolution settlement.

Mark Tami: The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) makes is that the mechanism for election to police panels is a devolved matter, meaning that the Assembly is responsible. How does the Minister square that circle?

Nick Herbert: If I may, I will come to that matter when we reach that specific group of amendments, because the Government have tabled amendments to address it. We must find a way to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the wishes of the Welsh Assembly, which it expressed in rejecting the legislative consent motion. I shall address that question at the appropriate time, but I wanted to respond specifically to the right hon. Member for Torfaen.
	When moving new clause 4, the hon. Member for Gedling made a number of wider points in which he attempted to open up once again the arguments for and against police and crime commissioners. I shall not dwell on those other than to say that he has expressed support in the past for the concept of a direct component in police authorities, as was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).
	In addition, in Committee, the hon. Member for Gedling moved an amendment for directly elected chairs of police authorities, and the previous Government twice proposed a democratic element. I accept that there is a difference between that Government and this one, but the difference is not that this Government do not believe in democratic reform of police authorities—it appears that all parties do. Rather, the difference is that the previous Government backed down twice, but we have no intention of doing so, because there was a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, because having directly elected police authorities was separately a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment.
	We now know that the latest proposal from the hon. Member for Gedling is for directly elected chairs of police authorities. In moving and voting for that amendment, the hon. Gentleman wholly undermined his argument on cost, because implementation of directly elected chairs of police authorities would cost not the same as police and crime commissioners, but more. Therefore, the most expensive proposal for democratic reform of police authorities in the House of Commons is from the Opposition spokesman.
	What is wrong with proposed new clause 4—I agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester East on this —is that it would put in the hands of the inspectorate of constabulary the power to hold an inquiry, and thereby to delay implementation of the Bill. Constitutionally, that would be very difficult. It would place the inspectorate in an invidious position. Parliament should decide reforms of this kind, after taking into account the views of both Houses and consulting widely. The idea that we can somehow park these matters into an inquiry by an independent body that is meant to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of policing is wrong. It would be very wrong for that organisation to do that, as it would effectively set up the inspectorate as judge and jury on a decision that Parliament had made. We therefore believe that these measures are the right thing to do, and we intend to proceed with them. Nevertheless, we are listening and will continue to do so.
	In conclusion, on new clause 4, I would like to point out that, when the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was proposing democratic reform of police authorities, he said that those who claimed to have the power, and who wished to hold the power, should therefore be accountable for the power. That is the right principle, and the basis on which we should proceed.

Keith Vaz: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s peroration, but I want to make a point about the timing of the election. During the course of the inquiry, the Select Committee picked up some concern
	about the election taking place in May next year, just before the Olympics, when people ought to be concentrating on security measures and related issues. Is the Minister quite satisfied that this is the right timing?

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point. There are two answers. First, I have said that the Government wish to move sooner in relation to London. The transition in London could therefore be made before the elections in 2012. Secondly, the measures relate to a change in the governance of policing. The Bill will not affect the police forces themselves. There are important changes being made, but this is principally a change to the governance of policing. There should be proper discussion, to ensure that in the run-up to the transition the police authorities do not lose sight of such important matters and that the forces that they hold to account do not do so either.
	The remaining group of Government amendments will not, I hope, be controversial. They are all of a minor and technical nature, and I will summarise them briefly now. Amendments 6 and 8 will clarify the wording of the Bill so that a commissioner—or, in London, the Mayor’s office for policing and crime—will be obliged to consult a chief officer of a force on a new or revised plan only to the extent that its content is actually new. At present, the wording of the Bill includes two repetitious obligations to consult on the plan—for example, in clause 5, subsections (6)(b) and (8). It would make no sense legally to compel such individuals to consult again on material that had already been discussed. I would expect such discussion to occur naturally and when necessary between a commissioner and his chief officer, so this new wording merely puts a duty on the commissioner to ensure that new content is drawn to the chief constable’s attention. Any more burdensome requirements would be needlessly bureaucratic and prescriptive.
	Amendment 9 will bring the police and crime plan issued by the Mayor’s office for policing and crime into line with other mayoral strategies, in regard to some of the matters that the Mayor has to bear in mind when drafting the plan. It is right that there should be a consistent and joined-up approach to the plan and the other strategies. Amendment 10 will clarify the scope of the duty on commissioners and criminal justice bodies to co-operate with each other. On the purpose of the co-operation, it replaces the word “in” with the word “for” in the phrase
	“so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system in the police area”
	in relation to a commissioner’s responsibilities for criminal justice “for their force area”. This reflects the fact that elements of the system such as a court or a prison that are outside the geographical area of the force may still contribute to the criminal justice system inside the area.
	Amendment 12 makes it clear that the general bar on a commissioner delegating the discharge of his functions to another commissioner or a chief constable does not prevent the delegation of functions in the context of a formal collaboration agreement. Amendment 13 will correct a reference to the wrong subsection in the provisions dealing with the delegation of the functions of the Mayor’s office for policing and crime to the Deputy Mayor for policing and crime.
	Amendment 14 will correct an internal inconsistency in clause 30, which deals with the suspension of a commissioner. We noted the inconsistency in Committee. Clause 30(1) makes it clear that the threshold for suspension is that the commissioner has been charged with an offence carrying a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding two years, but clause 30(4) incorrectly refers to the limit as a maximum sentence of two years or more. The amendment ensures that those references are consistent. I have noted the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for a better way to proceed on suspensions. We had a debate about that in Committee, and I suspect that the other place will return to the matter. The Government will pay attention to the concerns that are expressed. However, we are clear that the current threshold is proportionate, striking the correct balance between protecting the public from criminals and not suspending the public’s representative for trivial offences.
	Amendment 15 will correct an inconsistent use of language in the amendments that the Bill makes to the Police Act 1996, reflecting the fact that a commissioner will have the same function of maintaining the police force in his police area as a police authority has now under the 1996 Act. Amendment 20 will ensure that, while members of a commissioner’s staff may be compelled to answer questions and provide documents to a police and crime panel, they will not be required to divulge advice that may have been provided to the police and crime commissioner. That brings the provisions on commissioners into line with the existing arrangements for the Mayor of London, which we are retaining while replacing the Metropolitan Police Authority with the Mayor’s office for policing and crime. Not doing so would weaken a commissioner’s decision making power, as all discussions could potentially be subjected to criticism, which would discourage the free and frank flow of ideas.
	I apologise to the House for going into such detail, but I think that it is important to give the public clarity on the amendments. Amendments 31, 32, 38 and 39 concern the appointment of a commissioner’s chief executive. The current wording refers to a “qualified” person. However, the Bill does not impose any qualifications in respect of candidates for appointment as chief executive—in contrast to the position of the chief finance officer, who must be financially qualified in accordance with local government legislation—so there is no need to include the word “qualified”.
	Amendments 33 and 40 correct a drafting error in which references to the chief constable in amendment 33 and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in amendment 40 should have been references to the police and crime commissioner and the Mayor’s office for policing and crime, respectively. Amendments 34 to 37 and 135 to 138 are included to make references to police staff consistent with the rest of the Bill, which refers to them as “police civilian staff”. Amendment 42 is included simply to clarify the Bill. In its present wording, it is unclear what paragraph (2)5 of schedule 7 is referring to when it uses the phrase “for these purposes”. The amendment makes it clear that this means the purposes of sub-paragraph 6.
	Amendment 50 will correct a minor drafting error in relation to the replacement of the strategic policing priorities with the Home Secretary’s new strategic policing
	requirement. It amends the section of the Police Act 1996 that deals with policing objectives, which in future will apply only to the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, with the effect that the Common Council will frame its objectives so as to be consistent with the strategic policing requirement, rather than strategic priorities. This will bring the Common Council into line with other policing bodies. It was our intention to achieve that outcome, but the Bill as drafted did not do so.
	Finally, amendment 51 changes a reference to “authorities” in respect of arrangements for the police negotiating board to “persons and bodies”. This is simply to reflect the fact that police and crime commissioners are replacing the word “authorities” and it will no longer be applicable in this context.

Vernon Coaker: I thought the ending of that was brilliant.
	Let me say in all seriousness to the Minister that he is introducing a change to the model of policing in this country—the biggest change for centuries—without one shred of evidence that it is the right thing to do. In his response, we heard not one study cited, not one chief police officer quoted, not one police authority quoted, not one council quoted—as I say, not one shred of evidence in support. All the Minister did was repeat what he has done before—stand at the Dispatch Box and assert that he knows best. He accuses me of elitism, but I can see where the elitism lies when it comes to someone saying that they know best. This is no way to reform the police service; it should be done on the basis of evidence.
	I have a couple of quick points. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that Governments sometimes need to pause and look at what they are doing. That is the purpose of the new clause. It invites us to reflect on the evidence and on what people are saying and then to legislate and reform on the basis of that evidence, not ideological commitment. My right hon. Friend may well think that there is an alternative to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary when it comes to who is best placed to carry out the report. Perhaps his Select Committee or other bodies should be involved, but it does not alter the fact that, as he says, we sometimes need to take stock and reflect on how best to move forward and make change.
	I also want to deal with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). When the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituency, he should tell the people he has been talking to in his local authority and others that, as my right hon. Friend said, proposals in the Bill mean that if local authorities do not nominate members for the police and crime panels, the Home Secretary will take upon herself the power to impose individuals on those panels. That is why my right hon. Friend and others from Wales are so upset by the proposals, which effectively drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. Yes, police and crime commissioners are a reserved matter, but local authorities are a responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. That explains why there is such upset and disquiet about the proposals in Wales.
	This is a hugely important issue. As I said, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Local Government Association, council after council and ordinary police officer after ordinary police officer all oppose this measure. We have heard not a shred of evidence from the Government. That is why we say there should be an inquiry so that we can take stock, reflect and reform on the basis of evidence, not ideology. I therefore press the new clause to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 224, Noes 320.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nigel Evans: I have now to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to local government, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 187, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Memorandum of Understanding

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a Memorandum of Understanding on the Operational Responsibility of Chief Constables detailing where their actions shall be independent of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument bring into force the Memorandum of Understanding published under subsection (1).
	(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 149,page2,line44, clause 2, at end insert—
	‘such that the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations and arrests.’.
	Amendment 155,page4,line15, clause 3, at end insert—
	‘(8A) The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime must not ask, require or encourage the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to act in a manner which could—
	(a) put the Commissioner in breach of his attestation under oath in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Police Act 1996; or
	(b) conflict with the Commissioner’s exercise of direction and control under section 4(3).
	(8B) If the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reasonably believes that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has asked, required or encouraged him to act in a manner that is prohibited under subsection (8A), he may notify the London Assembly police and crime panel.
	(8C) For the avoidance of doubt, any purported direction by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime under subsection (8A) has no legal effect.’.

Vernon Coaker: This group of provisions is smaller, but none the less important. It is difficult for us to discuss new clause 5 without a draft of the code of practice, memorandum of understanding or protocol, as we are now to call it. He will know that in Committee
	I consistently and persistently asked for a draft to be ready for our consideration. To be fair, he did not say that one would be ready for Report, and I am not suggesting that he did, but I expected that a draft of a draft of a draft would be available, and I think that most members of the Committee would have expected the same.
	A huge change to policing is being made. The Minister and the Government have accepted what I said and what was in the Home Affairs Committee report, which was that such is the importance of the protocol detailing the responsibility of the police and crime commissioner vis-à-vis the chief constable—others, for example, the police and crime panel, could be included, as has been suggested—we should have it, yet we are discussing it without knowing even what shape it will be. We do not even know what things might be included in it. The Minister will say, “Don’t worry, it will be ready for the House of Lords.” Why should this House not have a draft available to it, so that it can consider what is in the protocol and make representations about it?
	We have no way of knowing what will be in the protocol. Let us suppose it contains things that members of the Committee think should not be in it. I do not know what influence the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have, but what happens if he does not agree with what is in it? He will have no opportunity to say anything about it. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) served on the Committee with the hon. Member for Cambridge. What happens if he thinks that the protocol should not include one thing but should include another? Why should we not be able to look at it?
	If the Minister was stood where I am and I was sat where he is, he would be saying exactly the same thing to me. He would be saying that it is impossible for us to legislate properly because we simply do not know what we are legislating about. It is not good enough to say, “Don’t worry, it will go to the House of Lords.” We have the most fundamental change in policing before us and we have no idea what the Government’s protocol is, although they have accepted that we should have it—that is not good enough. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House would think, either in public or in private, that that is acceptable either. How does, “It will be ready for the Lords” help us to discuss this?
	New clause 5 states that any such protocol must have some statutory force. The Association of Chief Police Officers believes it should be enshrined in primary legislation. The Minister said that would be very difficult, so we looked at whether an order-making power could be introduced to allow us to consider the protocol, as it would then be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House and the House of Lords.

Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause, as drafted, is in pretty poor shape? Even if we accepted it into the Bill, could not the Minister publish a memorandum under subsection (1) containing the word “none”?

Vernon Coaker: That might be a good debating point, but as a Bill goes through the House we need to debate its principles and the right legislative approach. We do not have the Queen’s counsel support that is available to
	the Minister, so the odd drafting error might occur, but that does not alter the thrust of what we are trying to do through the new clause. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here for the earlier debate he would know that the Minister, even with his bank of lawyers, supporters and helpers, has had to propose a number of amendments to correct drafting errors. So it is not only me who makes the odd drafting error, but I am doing it on my computer. Notwithstanding any drafting error, if we regard as right the principle that a protocol or memorandum of understanding should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House, we should support it.
	In its evidence and the report it issued yesterday, ACPO said that
	“there are three broad areas where we believe improved safeguards are required”.
	I shall deal with only the first of those three, as it relates to the new clause. ACPO said of the first area:
	“Clarity on the responsibilities of the PCC”—
	the police and crime commissioner—
	“and Chief Constable. The proposed ‘protocol’ is still early in its development. We believe such a key document will need to be specific and legally binding—such as through a Code of Practice founded in law.”
	That was ACPO’s advice yesterday. It continued, at paragraph 50:
	“ACPO has real concerns that the Bill does not fully recognise the uniqueness of the tripartite system between the Home Secretary, Chief Constables and local democratic governance. It is considered that the Bill places too much emphasis on local considerations giving disproportionate power to the PCC to the detriment of the necessary national and legal responsibilities placed upon the Home Secretary and Chief Constables. Our concern is to ensure that Chief Constables have sufficient operational independence safeguarding their impartiality to balance the various duties and accountabilities they face. Currently, it is at best uncertain that the safeguards under development in parallel with the progress of the Bill will achieve that aim.”
	I think ACPO is clearly telling the Minister that he needs to amend the Bill in a similar way to that suggested in my new clause.

Mark Reckless: The hon. Gentleman is telling us what ACPO said yesterday, but it is not easy for the Minister because ACPO has previously taken an entirely different line. Sir Hugh Orde told the Home Affairs Committee that he did not want anything entrenched in legislation.

Vernon Coaker: No doubt members of ACPO, including Sir Hugh Orde, its hugely respected president, will have considered the discussions on the Bill and will have continued to discuss it with colleagues in deciding on the most appropriate advice and guidance to give the Government. ACPO has regularly said that it is for the Government to determine the governance structure, but it will do its best, whatever structure is finally decided, to implement it and deliver the policing that we would all wish to see. However, it also has a responsibility to point out to the Government where there are problems, and it has done so in guidance. There is a serious need for clarity from the Government regarding the memorandum of understanding, code of practice or protocol.
	It is not acceptable for this issue not to be subject to a legislative process, and I should be interested to learn whether the Minister agrees. He has agreed that there
	should be a protocol, and a draft is in the throes of production—no doubt, a group is working on it and discussions are under way. I suspect that there are disagreements, which is why it has not been issued yet—it is proving more problematic than the Minister expected.
	We need a protocol, because we need to clarify the role of the police and crime commissioner vis-à-vis the chief constable. In Committee, we debated at length what their respective roles should be. The police and crime commissioner is elected on a local mandate and will make certain promises, but what is their mandate vis-à-vis the chief constable? Where is the line drawn between what the commissioner would wish to do and the chief constable’s operational responsibilities?
	It is interesting that an amendment has been tabled by some of the Minister’s colleagues, who are as concerned as I am. Indeed, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), has added his name to amendment 149. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is the lead Member for the amendment, and he is clearly concerned. The amendment has a great deal of merit, and it tries to deal with the issue. The hon. Gentleman is trying to clarify whether a police and crime commissioner has the opportunity to tell a chief constable to investigate a crime. Is it any crime, or no crime? Is that just a matter for the chief constable? Does the commissioner have any power over that?
	What about the funding of units? Can the commissioner tell the chief constable what units they should have? On the apportioning of resources, the Minister looked very upset when I quoted the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which showed that only 5% of police and community support officers were not in the back office. What about the commissioner’s ability to say what the correct mix of staff is? They might not want to see as many people doing a particular job, and may want to civilianise. The Minister’s favourite thing at the moment is looking at outsourcing. What if a commissioner does not believe in that? Whose responsibility would it be?
	What about the reorganisation of policing? Who has a say on that? What equipment can or cannot be used? It may be an operational decision to use horses or dogs in a public order situation, but does the commissioner have any jurisdiction or say in whether the police have a police or horse section? Is that an operational responsibility? If we had a draft protocol, we could begin to understand the differences in those areas.
	We have just seen the police do a very good job overall at the weekend, and I praised the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for it. However, when I recently saw him we discussed containment. What right does a police and crime commissioner or someone else have to tell a chief constable that they had dealt with such a situation wrongly? Does the police and crime commissioner have the right to do more than express an opinion? Police and crime commissioners are directly elected. We are not talking about a police authority. Police and crime commissioners will not be appointed by the Mayor and unelected, as in London. Who has the responsibility for making such decisions? These are hugely serious issues that worry many people across the country.
	The Minister’s response is, “It won’t be a problem. Don’t worry about it. Good sense will prevail. Why should the doomsday scenario presented by the shadow Minister happen?” That is a pretty poor way to legislate when we are dealing with such a serious matter. It is not enough to say, “Don’t worry. It won’t happen. Everybody’s good sense will prevail.” The amendments before us are important. Clearly, I am not the only one who is worried.

David Winnick: Has my hon. Friend noticed the lack of enthusiasm for the concept of police and crime commissioners? A good test in the House of Commons, as he knows full well, is whether, on a free vote—which obviously is not going to occur—the Government’s project would command a majority.

Vernon Coaker: No, on a free vote, I do not think the measure would go through. I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be even more interesting to see whether, on a free vote, the new clause, which seeks to give a legislative base to the protocol between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, would be supported by a majority. I suspect it would.

Stephen McCabe: My recollection of the discussion that took place in Committee is that the Minister repeatedly claimed that one of the arguments for a police and crime commissioner was that the public would know who to go to and who to complain to. There would be a single point. He cited the rise in the number of complaints when the Mayor of London took on that responsibility. Is it not the clear message of amendment 149 that the public will go to the commissioner with the expectation that he can intervene in investigations and cases? Unless it is spelled out in new clause 5 or in the amendment, we will be electing people on a false prospectus because the expectation will be that the commissioner has that power. This illustrates the dilemma that the Minister has created.

Vernon Coaker: I agree. That is the point I am making. An individual will stand for election in a police force area, saying, “I will ensure that there are X number of officers in this area and that area. I don’t want to see Tasers used. I don’t want to see such-and-such equipment used. I want to see the police patrolling not in pairs, but singly. I don’t want to see police in cars.” It will not be possible to stop someone saying that in their election manifesto. They are not going to stand for election saying, “I think everything’s wonderful. Vote for me.” What sort of election slogan is that? They would not get elected.
	Candidates will stand on an exciting, impassioned, inspirational agenda for change in policing in that area. My hon. Friend is right. That is the nub of the dilemma that the Minister faces—what happens when that individual, enthused with their election victory, or determined to be re-elected, tries to influence what the chief constable does?

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that the scenario that he describes will be worse when there is a second round of elections? The police commissioners will be trying to stay in the job and others will be saying how incompetent they are and trying to introduce change. It will be the constant agenda of candidates to run down the police and offer change—sometimes change for the sake of change.

Vernon Coaker: That is a very real danger. The Minister will no doubt try to say that he will address that through the protocol because it will lay out what can and cannot be done. It would have been extremely helpful if Members had even a draft to consider. Without it, it is very difficult for us properly to consider and debate the new clause. Having said that, the new clause is extremely important.

John Mann: Has my hon. Friend considered the dilemma of a member of a political party being elected and the same police force being requested to investigate election irregularities of another party member—for example, a Member of Parliament who is re-standing in that police area—if the decision on whether the issue should be investigated by the police is marginal? Has he considered that dilemma that the Government are about to create?

Vernon Coaker: That is another interesting dilemma that might arise. No doubt there are many other such examples in which we could point out the dangers.
	I cannot stress enough how important the police feel this is and how important I think it is. I am sure that we will all listen to the Minister when he responds not only to the lead new clause but to the amendment tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood.

Mark Reckless: I should first declare an interest as a member of the Kent police authority. I thank the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for his testimonial to my work in that role, which—who knows?—might find its way into one of my election leaflets.
	We have heard about the protocol—let us call it that, so that we use common language—and I note that the shadow Minister refers to operational responsibility in the new clause. It would be great to have a clearly agreed definition for operational independence or responsibility as it is, but it is enormously difficult to do that. ACPO’s position has changed on that, which does not necessarily assist us. The Home Affairs Committee visited ACPO two days ago, and it seems that the draft protocol is bouncing between it and the Home Office. ACPO had no objection to the draft being shared with the Committee when we asked for it. Will the Minister give the Committee sight of the protocol, even if it is still an early draft?
	Amendment 149 is a probing amendment, because it is very important to get the views of the House and of the Minister on the record. I have tried to emphasise a point that arose from the 1962 royal commission, which is that there is an important distinction, as I put it in the amendment, that the elected commissioner
	“shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations and arrests.”
	That is an important constitutional protection. The Minister spoke quite strongly on that both on Second Reading and in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I am slightly concerned that one remark he made in the Committee, regarding the potential for too strict an interpretation of what Lord Denning said in 1968, should not be taken out of context. The context, as the Home Secretary said on Monday, is that we anticipate that it will be the elected commissioner who is in charge, as with the Mayor of London.
	The Minister was very clear on Second Reading and when he gave evidence to the Committee on the role and importance of the elected commissioners and that what we are doing is rebalancing the tripartite system, moving from a police authority leg that has traditionally been too weak and bolstering the role of the democratic and local element with the directly elected commissioner.
	I raised that point with the Minister in the Committee on 27 July last year, and asked whether there was any possibility of an incompatibility between what we intended with the legislation and what Lord Denning said in ex parte Blackburn in 1968. The Minister’s reply was important. He said:
	“It is often stated, quoting Lord Denning's dictum that the police should be answerable to the law and the law alone. I think that is right in the sense of when they are exercising their powers of arrest and so on that that should not be subject to any kind of political interference. We would all agree about that but, clearly, somebody has to set the police budget and the strategic direction of the police, so there has to be accountability to someone, and our premise is that that should no longer be to the centre, to a faceless bureaucrat, to the Home Secretary; it should instead be to local people through the election of the police and crime commissioner.”
	That is what we intend to achieve with the Bill, and it is a distinction that is consistent with what we saw back in the 1962 royal commission.
	As the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) knows, the Select Committee received some helpful legal advice on this matter that read:
	“This part of Lord Denning’s judgment is not strictly binding as it went beyond the range of issues that had to be decided in that case, and is therefore obiter.”
	We then had an assessment from our legal advisers on a leading academic text in this area by Richard Clayton QC and Hugh Tomlinson QC, whose conclusion on Lord Denning’s judgment was:
	“The doctrine is an exorbitant one and its legal foundations are very slight”.
	I had a look at that leading text and some of the academic debate on the difficulty of defining operational independence and what it was considered to mean. Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson referred to section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996, which the Bill carries over, and wrote that it
	“appears to create a specific sphere of responsibility for the police authority”.
	They go on to state that section 10(1), which deals with the direction and control of the chief constable, is subject to that provision, and
	“only covers immediate operational direction and control but does not bear on the question of the extent to which the chief constable is under supervision of the police authority.”
	The Committee went into the academic literature in more detail. We heard from Rick Muir, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, who has done much work—from the left—on this key issue. He agreed with me when I asked whether there was a distinction
	“between the individual cases, where clearly the police should have independence in terms of arrest and investigation in those individual cases, and the broader spectrum of setting priorities, determining where budgets are spent and setting policy in general, which is properly the field of elected politicians”.
	He observed that unfortunately confusion had arisen because wrongly there had been a
	“tendency of chief constables to take Denning to mean that they are in charge of strategy”.
	We do not have before us this protocol that the hon. Member for Gedling referred to, but the Committee was able to draw out some of the key issues.
	My amendment emphasises the position in 1962. Unfortunately, when Denning made his judgment, he did not have the advantage of being able to refer to proceedings in the House. Judges have been able to do that only since Pepper v. Hart in, I think, 1994. The key 1962 royal commission, which set the consensus on operational independence, was summarised by the legal advisers in a report to the Committee. They wrote:
	“The Royal Commission on Police emphasised the need for impartiality and operational independence of the police in relation to ‘quasi-judicial’ decisions”.
	The royal commission included in those quasi-judicial decisions
	“inquiries with regard to suspected offences, the arrest of persons and the decision to prosecute,”
	adding:
	“In matters of this kind it is clearly in the public interest that a police officer should be answerable only to his superiors in the force and, to the extent that a matter may come before them, to the courts. His impartiality would be jeopardised, and public confidence in it shaken, if in this field he were to be made the servant of too local a body.”
	The commission said in respect of other duties:
	“It cannot in our view be said that”
	they
	“require the complete immunity from external influence that is generally acknowledged to be necessary in regard to the enforcement of the law in particular cases.”
	As our legal advisers point out, those other duties include
	“general policies in regard to law enforcement…the disposition of his force, the concentration of his resources on any particular type of crime or area, the manner in which he handles political demonstrations or processions”
	or
	“his policy in enforcing the traffic laws and…dealing with parked vehicles”.
	That clear distinction has therefore run all the way through, from the royal commission in 1962 to the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee has taken. That is what I am trying to emphasise with my amendment 149; indeed, it is also what the Minister emphasised when he appeared before the Committee. I would therefore be grateful if he confirmed that he does not resile from any of those remarks.
	The other important point to make about Denning’s judgment in 1968 is that it related not to what a police authority could do in terms of a chief constable, but to what a single individual, Mr Blackburn, who as a publicly spirited gentleman came to court with a judicial review, could do. The question was about the extent to which he as an individual could require the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to implement policing in a particular operational manner. That distinction is made clear by further material, including the 1988 case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, in which it was clearly drawn. In that case, Lord Templeman said:
	“The question for determination in this appeal is whether an action for damages is an appropriate vehicle for investigating the efficiency of a police force.”
	He concluded:
	“A police force serves the public, and the elected representatives of the public must ensure that the public get the police force they deserve.”
	It is clearly right that there can be no interference in individual investigations or arrests, but it is important to look at the issue from both sides.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the House’s attention what I think is a dilemma that the Minister has created. As I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, I have been reflecting on what would have happened if we had had police and crime commissioners at the time of the Stephen Lawrence murder and the subsequent inquiry. Does he think that it would have been possible for the police and crime commissioner to fulfil the requirements of both clause 1(8)(g) and his amendment 149?

Mark Reckless: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could cite that provision, which I do not have to hand.

Stephen McCabe: I apologise. Clause 1(8)(g) places a responsibility on the police and crime commissioner to
	“hold the chief constable to account”
	for
	“the exercise of duties relating to equality and diversity that are imposed on the chief constable by any enactment.”
	In particular, I am thinking of what came out of the Lawrence inquiry.

Mark Reckless: Yes, absolutely. What we saw in that instance was a failure in the operational direction of the Metropolitan police. Rather than waiting years and years for an inquiry to make the Metropolitan police have appropriate respect for diversity and follow up on such crimes in the way it should, a directly elected commissioner with sufficient authority could have pressed for that much more quickly. Indeed, that is one area where we would be looking for clear, elected oversight and guidance for the police.

Nigel Mills: On the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) just made, I note that my hon. Friend’s amendment states that
	“the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations”.
	If there were a high-profile murder, would my hon. Friend think it appropriate for the commissioner to say to a chief constable, “I think you should put more resource into that investigation. What you are doing now is not sufficient and there is real community concern”? Or is my hon. Friend saying that that would be inappropriate?

Mark Reckless: That is a very good example, which helps to elucidate the point. It would not be appropriate for the elected commissioner to say, “On this particular individual investigation I would like fewer”—or more—“police”, or, “You should investigate it in this way rather than that.” We do not look to the elected commissioners to do that, but I see a strong role for them in ensuring that justice is colour blind and that the police do not make assumptions about a witness or potential suspect on the basis of ethnicity or any other
	inappropriate basis. We have seen strong progress by the police in that area, but, with the Macpherson inquiry and the way in which some measures have been rolled out, there has not necessarily been the sensitivity that there might have been. The elected commissioner will have a relationship with the wider electorate, however, so they will sometimes be in a position to lead the police in particular areas regarding social attitudes.
	I have huge respect for the police, given my work with them in Kent, but there are particular traditions in policing and the work force are made up in a particular way. Those things have changed, with a very welcome and greater number of women now working as police officers, and there has been a significant improvement in black and minority ethnic representation. In Kent, we had the first black chief constable in Mike Fuller, who did an extraordinary job of engaging with the public and involving them closely with the work of Kent police. The police have a significantly smaller proportion of graduates, although it is higher than it was, and the elected commissioner will be able to lead in those areas. I look to him to do so.
	I emphasise to the House that the distinction I draw, going back to the 1962 royal commission at least, works both ways, and I am very concerned about budget setting, priorities and some of the management of public protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) asked some probing questions of various witnesses, but the question of whether there should be a presumption that police officers will travel in pairs, and the extent to which officers might be on bicycles, on foot or in cars, are very properly areas for elected oversight, and inevitably political decisions. If we do draw that distinction, the Bill will help chief constables.

Vernon Coaker: May I be clear about what the hon. Gentleman just said? Did he say that an elected individual should be able to try to influence the chief constable in terms of patrolling in pairs, individually or whatever, and in terms of the other examples he used? Or did he say that he thought it should be open to the police and crime commissioner to direct the chief constable on those matters?

Mark Reckless: In almost all those areas, there will invariably be agreement. There is give and take, and that has been my experience on a police authority. I am sure that in most instances it will apply to the elected commissioner and to the chief constable. I am not convinced that “direct” is the right word, but there might be public concern, as there was a few years ago in my area, about the police spending too much time in cars and not being available on the beat. Indeed, I have often heard it said that two officers who go out on the beat together will naturally tend to talk and enter into exchanges with each other, whereas one police officer on patrol might have a greater tendency to engage with the public.
	I think that we would look to elected commissioners to reflect the public view, although I would not necessarily be comfortable with that in individual instances. It would be right for the elected commissioner to say, “Previously we’ve had this presumption that officers should patrol in pairs, but I think in future the presumption should be that where possible officers patrol individually,” and I would expect the chief constable to give effect to
	that. However, if there were issues regarding safety, I would look to the chief constable to have those considered appropriately within the discussion.
	I do not agree with the view of ACPO, nor do Conservative Members or members of the Committee necessarily accept it, that police officers operate in a sort of political vacuum where they can, without reference to the elected authority, make the decision themselves. I think that people will campaign on these issues to become the elected police and crime commissioner. In many respects, it is entirely proper that the chief constable should then implement proposals with a democratic mandate behind them, as in the case of the Metropolitan police service following what Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, said about a stronger emphasis on knife crime and having more officers on public transport, particularly buses. The Metropolitan police did then implement that, and that is perfectly proper.
	I should emphasise that this point goes both ways. We need to ensure that chief constables recognise the appropriate and entirely proper role of the elected commissioner in making such decisions, but there is also the other side of the coin. My experience on a police authority is that I often get asked about operational matters. A sergeant may ask me whether I thought that a particular police community support officer should be deployed from one area to another, or a constable may ask me whether I am happy about how they have dealt with a particular offence, or whether I think that a particular individual should be charged or dealt with in a certain way. It has then been incumbent on me, as a member of the police authority, to say, “Hang on a minute, this is not a proper area for an elected politician to be determining what happens within the police.” I have always been very clear about that, and when there has been an issue that is a shade of grey I have referred it to our excellent area commander in Medway, Steve Corbishley. Such sensitive issues need to be dealt with at that higher level. One cannot necessarily expect every constable, sergeant or even inspector to be totally au fait with where this line should be drawn. I am echoing the emphasis that the royal commission, and the Minister in Committee, put on this complete protection in relation to individual investigation and arrest. That is an important safeguard, and it should work both ways.
	The Bill uses the phrase “have regard to” in relation to the police panel as against the commissioner for the budget, the commissioner in respect of a strategic policing objective, and the chief constable’s need to have regard to the policing plan determined by the Minister. We may be firing the starting gun for litigation, but if so, I hope that Members, particularly the Minister, have given a clear steer to the courts as to the role that we see elected commissioners having and the need to rebalance the tripartite relationship. Lord Hoffmann, in the case of Regina v. Chief Constable of Sussex ex parte International Trader’s Ferry Ltd, said that, even under the current arrangements, where regard must be had to the policing plan, the chief constable’s discretion was therefore “subject” to the statutory plan. Together with the roles of the chief constable and the Home Office, we have a rebalancing of the tripartite system. We are bolstering the democratic local element by having direct election, and that should provide a far stronger voice for the public in setting policing policy and priorities.

John Mann: I note the volume of Members taking part in the debate: I think attendance is under 3%. Doubtless everyone has better things to do. I note that fact because at some stage—not today—quorums will have to be challenged in the House if Members, not least on the Government side, do not turn up to promote the Bills that they propose.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on his excellent approach to trying to dismantle the Bill, and I fully support new clause 5. Let me give an additional reason why it is appropriate for the House to vote for the new clause. When this fragile coalition collapses, which will no doubt happen soon after the May elections, if this Bill has reached Royal Assent by then, rather than wasting primary legislative time immediately, my hon. Friend could use a statutory instrument to remove the most objectionable parts of the legislation, which were most eloquently described by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). He wishes to direct where police resources go and to make operational decisions, such as those, as he said, on the question of whether policing should be single or double. Those are fundamental operational decisions, and it is quite extraordinary that anyone could oppose the new clause, which seeks to rectify the damage that such a loss of operational independence will cause.
	This is an outrage. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and I come under the same police authority in Nottinghamshire, and I do not know whether he has found a single member of the Nottinghamshire police who supports the idea that an elected politician with such powers should be above them directing their work, as the Government propose. In my experience, there is great resentment about what the Government are doing to the police, including the idea that a politician should be elected to do that job, on whatever manifesto. That person might come from the mainstream parties, might be a maverick independent or might be a former senior police officer who has perhaps been forced out of the police for reasons that they choose not to declare. There are many different motives why someone might wish to stand for such a position, but when there is an election, the one certainty is that somebody will be elected. We have seen this with elected mayors: however low the turnout, somebody is elected and sometimes the population is rather aghast at what they have ended up with as a result of their inaction, or their inability or refusal to vote.
	It is bad enough when such things happen in local authorities, but to put such a person—an elected politician, playing to the gallery for election and re-election—in charge of operational policing matters is an outrage. This modest but well-written new clause at least offers some opportunity to pull that back. Of course, it could go further. If I were writing the memorandum of understanding, I would ensure that some of the other dangers to British policing that are being and have been brought in by this reckless Government were also rectified. There would also be an opportunity to build in something to stop the use of regulation A19, whereby experienced police officers—including those in my area—are refused the opportunity to continue in policing with the experience and training that they have built up, which the taxpayer has paid for. They want to stay on, doing a job and earning a decent living serving the public, but they have been removed by this Government. Police in my area are also very angry about police pensions.
	The dangers to police pensions, and to the basis on which people join and remain with the police, which has been undermined by this rotten Government, could be rectified by some wisdom in a memorandum of understanding or in the statutory instrument behind it, or could be dealt with by emergency legislation on day one when this fragile coalition collapses.

David Burrowes: It is always interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman scrutinise a Bill. He is speaking on behalf of the three Back-Bench Members of Her Majesty’s Opposition who are present. However, has he asked the people of Bassetlaw properly whether they want to have a stake in the policing in their area, to hold the police to account and to determine the priorities for policing? Is he not being presumptuous in assuming that he knows exactly what they want before there is a properly elected commissioner?

John Mann: I never like to be presumptuous. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, I constantly communicate with the people of Bassetlaw about their views. However, one has to prioritise. My question to them at the moment, which they are answering in their thousands, day in, day out—I am sure that there will be more answers by the end of tonight—is whether they agree with the 30% cut in police and fire services that his Government, backed by the Liberals, are bringing in. That is an even bigger danger to their standard of living and quality of life, and to the security and safety of businesses, pensioners, young people, and the whole population in my area.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had no representations from anybody asking for another elected politician. The Government have prided themselves on getting rid of 50 MPs. Looking at the green Benches today, it appears that they might already have got rid of a random assortment of 50 MPs. Those MPs will be replaced by about 44 new politicians. It is almost a job swap. This is costing the taxpayer money. More crucially, it is diverting us away from the priorities. I know that Members from all parts of the House, and especially the Liberals, will want to vote for this excellent new clause, because it gives us the opportunity to clarify that we will not have meddling by politicians in any area of police operations. I cited the dangers of that in my earlier intervention.
	The Government have given us statistics that show that across the country, cases about elections and petitions of one kind or another have been taken to the police, including by political parties. In the county of Nottinghamshire such cases have been taken by political parties, including by the Conservative party. I think that that was a bit spurious and a waste of police time, but the party was entitled to do it. If politicians or their backers are doing deals with one party or another, in the traditional way, to become the candidate for this new elected position, and they are also using the police in making allegations about elections—be they parliamentary, local or even potentially for police commissioners—how will that be dealt with? How will there be impartiality when there is one elected person at the very top? That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill and in the Government’s logic.
	There will of course be an opportunity—I will not speak to this point now, Mr Deputy Speaker—to reject this rotten Bill tomorrow at 6 o’clock, or perhaps even
	earlier. In the meantime, any logical, rational, law-and-order politician in this House will back the excellent and considered new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, because it will amend the Bill in a way that provides some protection. The people in my area want effective policing that is run by the police, and they want the police to be accountable.
	I do not know whether as a boy the Minister liked to play with Meccano or Lego, but I can see that he has built up the idea that it is his job to meddle, to take apart and to rebuild. He has taken that forward into adult life, and when it comes to the police force, because he is the Police Minister he has to do something to demonstrate that he is worth his money.
	The Minister could tell the police, “Here are the resources I’ve battled with the Treasury to get you. Go out there, catch criminals and give the general public confidence in security and safety. Get on with your job and do a good job, and we will hold you accountable to ensure that you do.” Oh, no. He cannot do that. Instead, he has to meddle and try to rebuild everything, just as the Government are doing with schools and the health service. The excellent new clause 5 would at least pull the Government back from that, so I recommend it to the House, and I trust that all Members will vote for it.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is clearly a grand master when it comes to playing to the gallery. I must say, I was rather worried for his health, or indeed his sanity. I wonder whether he actually believes his doom-mongering vision of the world, but he is certainly very effective at getting across his concerns. He will be very disappointed about this, but I suggest that he should not hold his breath while he waits for the coalition to collapse, because 2015 is a long way away.
	I now turn to the new clause and the amendments. It is clearly welcome that the protocol, or the memorandum of understanding, is being discussed and drawn up.

Vernon Coaker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have a draft of that to consider, even if it is a draft of a draft? It really is not good enough that it will be available to the House of Lords to consider without our having had it in front of us.

Tom Brake: I think that the Minister and I would probably agree that in an ideal world it would have been useful to have a draft, but I do not think it is essential. I am sure that the House of Lords will deal with the matter in the professional way that we would expect.
	It is interesting to note that initially senior officers had strong reservations about whether they wanted a protocol, so a degree of flexibility will be needed. I have some sympathy with amendment 149, but I suspect that the Minister will make it clear that there is every expectation that the police and crime commissioners will have no involvement in decisions on individual investigations and arrests. That will be a clear requirement.
	The one point that may require clarification is what would happen in a case that actually involved the police and crime commissioner. For instance, if they had been assaulted, would the amendment prevent them from taking a decision about whether charges should be pressed? I do not know whether the hon. Member for
	Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) considered that in tabling the amendment, and if he has a response I would be very happy for him to intervene on me at this point. If he is not going to, the Minister might want to pick up on that point when he responds.
	In an ideal world we would have been considering a draft protocol, but clearly a lot of work on it is still going on. I am sure that means that when it is put into the public domain, it will be strong and satisfy Members. As I said, I understand where the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood is coming from on amendment 149, but it is clear that there will be no expectation whatever that the commissioners will get involved in individual decisions. One would expect that the police and crime panels would have forceful things to say if they did so.

Nick Herbert: First, I confirm again to the House something that has been confirmed on a number of occasions: the Bill does not change the legal position that the direction and control of forces remains with the chief constable. Therefore, the basis of the legal relationship between police authorities and chief constables is maintained in the direction of control in the Bill.
	Nevertheless, there is concern about ensuring the fundamental principle of the operational independence of chief constables, which we debated at considerable length in Committee. As we discussed at some length, there is no statutory definition of operational independence, and indeed, there is general agreement that it would be unwise to attempt such a definition. The matter has been considered on a number of occasions by the courts—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) spoke of one key case. However, ACPO, which is concerned to ensure that the operational independence of chief officers is not in any way threatened, has said that it does not wish us to try to define it in law.
	The debate on the proper role of the chief constable and the proper role of the local body that holds them to account will continue—as it does between police authorities and chief officers and others, with the matter sometimes ending up in court. That is part of what Sir Hugh Orde, the ACPO president, described—not pejoratively—as the tension that should exist in the relationship. However, as I said in Committee, to some extent, we are talking about shades of grey.

Mark Reckless: Is not one limitation of existing case law that an individual litigant—or a company such as International Trader’s Ferry—trying to get the chief constable to do something is different from the relationship that the Minister describes between the police authority and its statutory powers and the chief constable? The Home Affairs Committee heard from witnesses who felt that there is significant scope within the existing regime for police authorities to be more assertive in setting policy—it just happens that they have not done so.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend’s point is well made. However, the police and crime commissioner, who will have a mandate, could be more assertive. That is the basis and thrust of the chief constables’ concerns. I cited the example of London. The Mayor of London stood on a manifesto of placing uniformed officers on public transport and tackling knife crime. Whether that cut across the operational independence of the Met has been debated but not resolved, but it is significant that
	those things have happened, and the Metropolitan police have willingly implemented them. We must accept that, to some extent, there are areas of negotiation and shades of grey, which is why all parties agree that it would be a mistake to try to define in statute the notion of operational independence.
	However, equally, we are all agreed—as I indicated on Second Reading, the Government were already minded to do this—on drawing up a protocol, as the Home Affairs Committee recommended, to try to set out the precise roles of the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable in the new arrangements, and to broaden the protocol to cover the role of the police and crime panel, given that that is new, and the role of the Home Secretary. It is worth stating that the Government’s intention in introducing that reform is not to abandon the tripartite, but to rebalance it, because we feel that it has been too distorted in the past, particularly in relation to the accrual of power by the centre and the Home Secretary.

Elfyn Llwyd: Can the Minister enlighten us as to what would happen if someone breached the protocol?

Nick Herbert: May I come to that in a moment? I will address the status of the document shortly.
	As I mentioned earlier, the Home Office has set up a transition board to discuss how the present system will migrate to the new one. One of the issues that we are discussing is the protocol; that work has begun. ACPO has nominated Chief Constable Adrian Lee of Northamptonshire police to be its representative. He will sit on a working party, alongside Home Office officials and representatives from other organisations including the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, to discuss the issue. Work is therefore ongoing.
	I have to say to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that it was never going to be possible to produce a draft document in time for Report, and he knows that I never indicated that it would be. However, I have said that we will attempt to produce one in time for it to be considered in the other place. I hope that he will appreciate that that is being done with the best of intentions and at the fastest possible pace, given the complexity of the issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a similar protocol that was proposed in Northern Ireland by the Patten commission in 2004 was discussed over several years and has still not been put in place. That is partly because Patten recommended that the concept involved should be one of operational responsibility, and not independence. I note that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the words “operational responsibility” in his new clause. We are not using them ourselves, however; we are using “operational independence”. The work is ongoing, and it is our intention to try to produce something for the Lords. I am sorry that we have not had an opportunity to look at a draft here, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the work is under way.
	I want to turn to the status of the document. New clause 5 seeks to set out the memorandum of understanding in secondary legislation. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) asked what the consequences would be of not following the protocol. We envisage that this will be an extra-statutory document, and that it will be issued in the form of guidance. I am certainly willing to consider what the legal status of the document should be, and whether it should have some kind of statutory imprimatur, but we really need to see what it looks like first. We need to understand how granular it will be, and whether that would effectively define operational independence in a way that, so far, everyone has made it clear we should not so define it. I reassure the hon. Member for Gedling, however, that this matter should be considered, and I have no doubt that the other place will have a view on it.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for replying to my question in such short order, and in as much detail as he could muster. If he is saying that some form of legislative vehicle might encompass the protocol, would not regulation by statutory instrument be the obvious answer?

Nick Herbert: I repeat that we do not envisage this being a statutory document. It was originally called a memorandum of understanding by the Select Committee, and I do not think that the Committee’s recommendation envisaged it being a statutory document. Its purpose is to clarify the roles and responsibilities in law. In other words, it will be seeking not to set law but to explain what the law is. The danger is that we will be drawn into a means of setting law, when all the parties involved have so far said that we should not seek to define operational independence by statute. They have said that we should leave the matter to the understanding of the courts and the existing case law.

Mark Reckless: Will the Minister agree to supply the document, at least in draft form, to the Home Affairs Committee as well as to the House of Lords? The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office are negotiating, but should not the negotiations be for the tripartite system, although we do not yet have the elected commissioners in place?

Nick Herbert: First, the Association of Police Authorities is certainly involved in the drafting; it is part of the group discussing the matter. I agree that negotiations must reflect the tripartite system, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend about that. As to supplying the draft to the Home Affairs Committee, I am happy to agree. Furthermore, if my hon. Friend would like to meet me and officials to discuss it further, I think it would assist our deliberations. I would like to organise that as soon as possible, bearing in mind the considerable experience that my hon. Friend brings as a member of a police authority with a particular view.
	I appreciate my hon. Friend’s purpose in proposing amendment 149, according to which
	“the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement”
	in deciding whether a person is investigated or directed. In fact, that is the existing common law principle and the courts have consistently stated that the Executive must not interfere in operational law enforcement decisions, so there is no need for that to be written expressly in the Bill.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Gedling will accept the good faith with which I agreed with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I hope he will acknowledge that I have listened to the Association of Chief Police Officers and others who have expressed concern about operational independence; restated that we do not seek to cut across that principle; and confirmed that we will bring the draft document before Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. I appreciate that he would have liked to see it sooner, but I hope he acknowledges the very considerable steps we have taken in this regard.

Vernon Coaker: Before I comment on the Minister’s remarks, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his support on the issue of the necessity for this memorandum of understanding. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) commented on what was said by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)—that there was an expectation of no involvement. That is part of the problem. The Minister is right to say that the common law position precludes interference, but I am trying to deal with what will happen when the new model comes into effect, particularly the concern that it will change the parameters within which the policing model works.

Mark Tami: Given the sort of person who is going to be elected to the panels, might it not lead to an adversarial relationship almost from day one? Indeed, the person might have stood on a platform in order to take on the chief constable for something he had done.

Vernon Coaker: That is exactly the point. Concerns have rightly been raised about who will be elected and the mandate and manifesto on which they are elected, and particularly about the possibility of its being imposed on the chief constable. Those are very real concerns. The Minister knows that there is a general acceptance of trying not to define in statute too rigidly. I say sincerely that I appreciate he is acting in good faith. I did not say that he had promised to bring the matter before us on Report. My expectation was that he might have been able to do so, but he did not say that and I know that he has acted in good faith.
	The Minister seems to have moved again in respect of this new clause. To be fair, it shows the difficulty of trying to navigate through this area, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. None the less, I noted that the Minister said that he “may” decide that it is necessary to include a statutory legislative provision on which to base the protocol. I agree with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Lywyd): it is essential for the Bill to contain a requirement with regard to the protocol.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 216, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Issuing precepts

‘(1) The police and crime commissioner must notify the relevant police and crime panel (the “panel”) of the precept which the commissioner is proposing to issue for the financial year (the “proposed precept”).
	(2) The panel must review the proposed precept and make a report to the commissioner on the proposed precept, which may include recommendations, including as to the proposed precept.
	(3) The commissioner must respond in writing to the panel, either to accept the recommendations, in full or in part, or to reject them, and to state whether the proposed precept is revised or unchanged following consideration of the panel’s report.
	(4) The proposed precept will then be fixed as the precept under section 40 of the Local Government Act 1992 unless the panel rejects the proposed precept by at least three-quarters of
	the persons who are members of the panel at such time voting for such rejection.
	(5) If, following such rejection, the panel and the police and crime commissioner agree within 14 days a proposed precept, then the police and crime commissioner shall issue that proposed precept as the precept for the financial year.
	(6) Otherwise the panel shall propose an alternative precept, and provision shall be made by the participating authorities for a referendum across the relevant police force area to determine whether the precept proposed by the commissioner, or the alternative precept proposed by the panel, shall be fixed as the precept for the financial year.
	(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations with regard to the timing of the provisions of this Clause and the procedures that are to be followed in respect of a referendum described in sub-Clause (6).’.—(Mark Reckless.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Mark Reckless: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 151, in clause 28,page21,line9, leave out ‘5 or’.
	Amendment 152,page112,line15, leave out Schedule 5.

Mark Reckless: New clause 6 deals with the police and crime panel and, specifically, the powers that it may or may not have in respect of assessing and setting the precept. Ever since I first considered the issue of elected commissioners and their proper role, I have found the issue of budget setting particularly knotty and difficult. As a strong proponent of elected commissioners, I see a good argument for giving them the power to set the precept and the budget, and just letting them get on with that. I can see the argument that they have the mandate, so surely they should make the decision.
	However, I have at least a slight concern about giving such significant budget-setting power over a whole electoral term to one individual. That is why I am attracted to some of the ideas we have heard, including from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, about the police and crime panel. There has been a very positive, highest common factor rather than a lowest common denominator approach, and the Bill has been improved through the interchange of ideas between Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members.
	We have heard about the capping arrangements of the Labour party in recent years. There was capping under previous Conservative Governments but it seemed to become almost standard in Labour’s 13 years in government for Ministers to set a number—it was never quite clear how they determined that number—over which anything, regardless of the circumstances and however low the council tax base, was capped by central Government. That approach seems wrong to me and we have a proposal to deal with it in relation to local government: instead of having a Secretary of State—I assume for Communities and Local Government—capping a council above a certain level, that Secretary of State would have reserve powers to require a local referendum in an area where he considered an increase to be excessive. That strikes me as a reasonably sensible balance, and certainly an improvement on the status quo and the current capping power.

Julian Huppert: This issue is effectively about the principle of capping, which causes real problems. Is my hon. Friend aware, in the local government context, of councils in Cambridgeshire that used to charge zero council tax and were prevented by capping from charging any at all? We do not want the same sort of ridiculous problems happening with police precepts.

Mark Reckless: Yes, I am aware of that issue. The predecessor council to mine in Medway, Rochester upon Medway council, similarly had no council tax and when Medway took over as a unitary authority, we had one of the lowest council taxes in the country—virtually the lowest except for the Scilly Isles at one point. However, we had the same percentage limit as everyone else, so when central Government put a new burden on local government and we had to fund it as a fixed cost, we were less well-placed to do that because the amount we could get through a percentage increase was less than other councils that had previously had higher taxes could get.
	A similar regime to that for local councils has applied to police authorities, but to an extent it has been less controversial than that for councils because police authorities have not had the same democratic mandate as local government. There are only nine elected councillors on my police authority among 17. It is true that the majority of those nine must approve the precept as well as a majority of the 17, but it is certainly less of a democratic mandate than that for local councils in which all the local councillors are elected. I have understood, previously, that when the Communities Secretary, rather than the Home Secretary, has capped an authority, that has not been popular with the authority, but I have understood why it happened. However, I can see the attraction of moving from that to a referendum power as we are doing with local government.
	I think there is a potential problem or issue, which I hope can be resolved through the Bill or its application, with bringing in the new body—the local police and crime panel. The panel will have a representative from every council in the police area, and I particularly welcome the involvement of district councils, which have been so important in developing crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships. Their involvement on the ground will be a real advantage: it will bring real insight to the commissioner and the force and it will pull local government more generally into the new arrangements. We hear a lot about the Local Government Association or police authorities not liking the new arrangements, and people who have a particular stake in the existing process might say that, but the districts coming in is going to be a real gain.
	There is dispute about how strong the panel will be, and its powers are characterised in various ways, but one of its key powers will be its oversight and scrutiny of the budget. It is proposed that, in extremis, if three quarters of the panel agree, the panel can exercise what is described as a veto in the Bill, and paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 5 prescribe that the Secretary of State can make further regulations on that. In Committee, the Minister described some of his intentions for the regulations, but I am a little unclear about that because the regulations referred to in the Bill seem to be about how that veto process will work, whereas quite a lot of the detail that the Minister gave to the Committee seemed to refer to
	when or where there would be a referendum and the Secretary of State’s involvement. That is one of the issues, because it is envisaged in the Localism Bill that the Secretary of State will have referendum-calling powers and will presumably use regulations to determine how that happens. It is envisaged in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill that the panel will have a veto and that there will be regulations on that. The crossover is not clear. There will be a directly elected individual who will come to office with a great mandate. One of his responsibilities is to set the budget and the precept, yet there are two other bodies—the panel and the Secretary of State; it is not clear whether it is the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government or the Home Secretary—who have at least some locus standi in setting the budget.
	We have to trust the commissioner generally to get on with it. There should be a reserve power, so that in extremis if there is a serious problem with the commissioner or if he does something that is completely out of line, the body with that power can come in and mitigate the problem. However, I am not convinced that we need two bodies, with the panel supposedly exercising a veto and the Secretary of State possibly requiring a referendum. It is not quite clear how those two things work together. The new clause would try to achieve greater clarity with a focus on the local and democratic. The Bill refers to giving the panel a veto, but when I read what the Minister said about what the regulations would do, it was not clear that it was a veto. If what is described as a veto is exercised, the elected commissioner has to “have regard to” that. We heard in the preceding debate how difficult that phrase can be. Having had regard to the veto, the commissioner can propose another figure—presumably, it would be at least marginally different—and can set it as the precept for the coming year.
	Does the phrase “have regard to” mean that the commissioner has to do what the panel wants or, at the other extreme, is it envisaged that he can just come back with something marginally different, and that is his decision as the commissioner? Are we saying that we cannot really make up our mind and that the courts have to decide all this and there will be litigation? That does not strike me as ideal, so I hope that, perhaps in the other place, we will reach agreement on this issue.

Julian Huppert: I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman made about having to use litigation. There is serious concern about what would happen if, when a budget was set, there was uncertainty and we had to use court orders. I am sure that he is aware of the cost of rebilling, and there is an important principle that we want to set all the amounts of council tax, while we still have council tax, at the same time, rather than send out multiple letters, which would just add to the cost of that process.

Mark Reckless: In my reference to litigation, I was alluding to the fact that the prospect of dispute, at least on the first occasion, given the narrow time scales and the costs of rebilling, would not be a positive thing. I have worked closely with my hon. Friend on the Home Affairs Committee on the issue—his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is
	strongly involved in these issues too— and I feel that there is a significant measure of agreement between us. In the coalition, it is important that we decide what we want to do, and state that clearly in the Bill and subsequent regulations so that we do not face the prospect of litigation.
	Some Liberal Democrats may like the idea of a complete veto for the panel, but I am not sure that many of my Conservative colleagues would necessarily agree, given that the commissioner has a directly elected mandate and the members of the panel are appointed. However, I am convinced that a measure of financial oversight by the panel and by the councillors from every council who serve on it would be valuable. It will keep the commissioner linked in to local government, which is extremely important. The Minister has a criminal justice portfolio, and there is extraordinary scope for the elected commissioners to act in the wider criminal justice area. However, we do not want a great division to open up between local government and the work of the elected commissioner in criminal justice, so that knitting together is important.

Stephen McCabe: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this element, but if it is valid to argue that the commissioner must be virtually in a negotiation position with the panel so that they arrive at the right decision on the precept, I do not understand why, in every other respect, the commissioner should be able to arrive at his decision independently, with the role of the panel being simply to scrutinise it. Why does the hon. Gentleman make an exception in relation to the precept? Surely the logic of his argument is that the panel should have a different set of powers in relation to the commissioner.

Mark Reckless: The power over the precept is an extraordinarily important one, particularly over the whole elected term of the commissioner. Even I, as a strong supporter of directly elected commissioners, would be slightly nervous about one individual on his own taking those budgetary decisions for a number of years. I welcome the involvement of the panel in that, but I do not envisage a constant negotiation—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House.
	A three quarters majority will be required. What is needed is almost a reserve power, so that if the commissioner wants to slash the budget massively against the will of the local area, or put through really hefty increases, there is some oversight and some way that that can be mitigated. The panel is a sensible body to do that, but we need to be clear what it would then do. Would it veto the plans and would the commissioner be obliged to accept that, or would it just say, “Go away and think again”?
	The present wording, “have regard to”, represents an intended compromise, but leads to considerable uncertainty. As none of us wants to see litigation on this aspect, I am proposing instead that we bolster the local crime panel with a clear power. That will not necessarily be a veto as, if it is, it will be a soft veto. If the panel was seriously worried about the precept, there could be a referendum in the local area. The members of the panel would be appointed by the councils in that area, so those councils would bear the cost of a referendum. They would think long and hard before calling a referendum if they were paying for it.
	That arrangement would provide some protection. If the commissioner went off in one direction, away from others, it would give some possibility of pulling him back, but it would not make him subject to the panel, because the commissioner would have the directly elected mandate, whereas the panel would be appointed. Giving the panel the power to require a referendum would be a sensible way forward.
	We may be envisaging a referendum power, but it seems that we are expecting to import parts of the Localism Bill into the policing environment, when we already have a separate police and crime panel as a check on the elected commissioner, whereas we do not have a similar check in local government. I propose that the two should be distinct and that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government should have the power of referendum for local councils, but in the policing universe where we are setting up a panel that will be representative, that panel should be responsible. In extremis, it would have the power to call a referendum on the local precept. We therefore would not need the central oversight and dictation of the Secretary of State in this area.
	The new clause would bring greater clarity and provide the local and democratic arrangements that we need. I commend it to the House.

Stephen McCabe: I shall be brief. I am intrigued that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has tabled the new clause. It is a matter of great regret that he was not a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. What we are beginning to hear in his contributions is how much doubt exists in the hearts of Conservative Back Benchers about some of the key elements of the Bill. That was evident in some of his earlier amendments, but it is extremely evident in this group. He is prepared to tolerate a single elected individual having enormous power over the shape and influence of an area police force over a four-year cycle. He is prepared to tolerate a police and crime plan that might change the shape and direction of the force beyond all recognition. Despite being a loyal and active member of a police authority that has massive experience and whose benefits he regularly tells us about, he is prepared to put up with all those measures.
	The hon. Gentleman realises in his heart the fundamental danger that, if the Government persist with their present approach to cuts in police funding, at some stage authorities in parts of the country of the kind he represents will be on a collision course with the Government. The police commissioner will be forced to look at the question of the precept as a means of off-setting the budget cuts that the force is facing. The hon. Gentleman does not want to be in that position when a single elected police commissioner is able to bring forward a proposal for a hugely increased precept, because he fears what the electors in his area will say about that and the repercussions for himself and his party followers.

Mark Reckless: I must say that that really is not the case and has not been my experience. In Kent we have been able to find significant savings in our budget while protecting the front line and, in the words of our chief constable, have an opportunity to have a more efficient and effective force. As an elected Member, I looked to constituents in the private sector who are suffering and
	wanted to see some savings made in the police budget. My colleagues did not agree this year—they perhaps did not have the same direct election focus—but then they did come to realise this and we found significant savings. It is because we have that democratic element that we are able to find the savings and get the police to operate more efficiently, and the elected commissioners should be able to do that even better.

Stephen McCabe: That democratic element cannot be fundamentally unique in relation to setting the precept but absolutely different in relation to any other aspect of the work of the commissioner. It is my contention that the people who support the amendment fear what will happen when the precept has to be ratcheted up to compensate for the cuts. They know that there will be massive electoral consequences and so are seeking to insert a device to denude the commissioner of the one power that they fear more than any other.

Julian Huppert: I am not sure that I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not agree that the precept is in some sense absolutely key to what is happening, because it sets the total envelope of resource available to a chief constable to do their job? It is one of the most fundamental decisions that could be made by the commissioner.

Stephen McCabe: If I was to stand as a candidate for police commissioner and was setting out my stall for the kind of police force I would want to see, I would not have to put on my election material the caveat, “By the way, I’ll have no power over the fundamental decision about funding.” With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The Government are trying to have it both ways: they want to create political commissars to run the police, but they also want to retain the power to mitigate the risk that the commissioner might come up with a precept that is unacceptable to the electorate. That is classically what is wrong with the Bill. It is designed to give the commissioner power in the areas that suit the Government, but at the heart of the Conservative party there is a doubt about that. The Government are trying to back the proposal while simultaneously watering down its key element because they fear that the course of action that they have embarked on will have electoral consequences for them.

Michael Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the previous Labour Government did something very similar on elected mayors?

Stephen McCabe: I am talking about police commissioners, although I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not particularly a fan of elected mayors. However, if we are going to have mayors, I would have them elected, not imposed under a shadowing arrangement first, because that suggests that there is some doubt about their validity. If he wants to talk about elected mayors, he should move on to safer ground.
	I have doubts about the intention behind the new clause. I admire the dedication that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood shows on these issues. I wonder
	why, however, some Government Members are happy to swallow all the other elements, but on the key element of finance, want the power to water down the powers and take hold of the commissioner.

Julian Huppert: I am still unclear. If the hon. Gentleman does not support the alternative in the new clause, is he saying that he prefers the existing mechanism, which involves the Secretary of State? Which is he arguing for, or is he arguing against both?

Stephen McCabe: I am saying quite simply that the nature of the existing powers, as I understand them, would give the Secretary of State the right to intervene. If the Government do not have faith in their own system, it seems right that they should have the power to intervene. However, what I do not want is a scheme that says, “We’re in favour of police commissioners, but by the way we’re going to limit their power when it comes to the area where we think there could be electoral disadvantage for us.”

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have spent much time together on the Bill Committee, on a previous Bill Committee and in the Home Affairs Select Committee crossing swords on some of these issues. I am encouraged by the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), because it would do some useful things for which I argued in Committee. It talks about strengthening the panel. We talked earlier about the Liberal Democrats’ initial manifesto commitment to having a strong panel, and there have been negotiations among the different sides about how to fit the two models together. However, the new clause moves in the direction I tend to prefer, so as ever it is a pleasure to work with him.
	The new clause also leans more towards local accountability, which to me is very important. I have always been a localist—not only since the formation of the coalition Government—and I think that this policy should be about local determination. That was what was wrong with capping council taxes. We had councils that could not make sensible decisions owing to capping powers and because the Secretary of State was too remote from what was going on locally. Those councils could not make sensible decisions whether on tiny increases in very low council taxes, because those increases went above a certain percentage, or on moving from a council tax of zero, which was possible in a few rather unusual places, because any increase broke the percentage rule.
	What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said was interesting. First, there is the issue of the precept. Why is the precept different from all other areas? We could adjust a whole lot of different premises, but the precept is the key. As I said in my intervention, it is what determines how much money is available to the chief constable. If only one decision could be made by a commissioner each year, the total amount of cash is surely the one for which we would want to provide the most control. It is also the one on which there would not be advice and policy guidance from other bodies on how to operate and what the constraints might be. It is properly a decision to be taken locally.
	There are questions about what one does if a commissioner makes a decision that is held to be unreasonable by other people locally. This applies whether
	to a commissioner or a council leader. Whatever the structure, there will always be situations in which there is disagreement about whether something is being done appropriately. The question is: how do we resolve that disagreement? I was interested in the response that the hon. Gentleman gave to my question. He seemed to be arguing for the Secretary of State to have that power, but that is precisely the opposite of the localist agenda that I would like put in place. The Secretary of State should not be interfering in how the precept is set. They should do their utmost not to have anything to do with it, if possible. They should have a role in setting the framework, but they should not have the power to say, “That is too much. I’m the Secretary of State and I say so.”

Stephen McCabe: Perhaps I can clarify matters a fraction for the hon. Gentleman. My point is that the police Minister and the Secretary of State inevitably have some responsibilities for the police that go beyond localism, as was discussed extensively in Committee. In fact, if I recall rightly, we discussed what would happen if the budget was set too low and therefore did not enable the police force to fulfil its obligations. The argument that the Minister advanced at the time was that the Secretary of State should have the power to step in. The hon. Gentleman seems to arguing for a pure form of localism that completely ignores that—

Mr Speaker: Order. Interventions are becoming increasingly lengthy, and they need to be rather shorter.

Julian Huppert: Thank you, Mr Speaker, although this is a matter of great interest, so I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, having made my own mistakes earlier this afternoon. I lean towards pure localism. Let us remember that the people on the panel making the decision will be councillors appointed by their local authorities. In Cambridgeshire, for example, I find it hard to see how, say, the representative from Cambridge city council could look at a budget that was insufficient to provide the basic policing and say, “Yeah, that’s fine. I can’t be bothered to interfere with this one.” I do not have that lack of faith in our local councils or our local democratic system. I have concerns, although I prefer the new clause to the original proposals, under which the Secretary of State would have had a strong role. However, I do not entirely agree with everything in the new clause. In particular, I am not comfortable with the idea of having to have a three-quarters majority, which we discussed in Committee, as Members will know. I tend towards a somewhat lower figure.

Michael Ellis: My hon. Friend has misgivings about having a 75% majority, but does he not feel that it ought to be that high, because that is what would be required to overrule a democratically elected figure, which ought to be a severe circumstance and rare happening?

Julian Huppert: It is important to remember that, with the exception of the two independents—another example of how I would not have designed the system—the majority of panel members will be democratically elected, representing their councils in their system. They are not directly democratically elected, but they are indirectly democratically elected. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, the model in London is a two-thirds majority for scrutiny of a democratically elected individual, so I
	am more comfortable with two thirds. That does not make a huge difference for a typically sized panel, which will have 12 people. We said in Committee that the difference will be between nine votes and eight votes, but it is more useful to look at it the other way. In order to stop the veto, the commission would have to get four or five people either to vote with him or not to be there. That makes a bigger difference as the panel gets bigger.
	The structure of the new clause is more positive than has been described, because it leans towards trying to have sensible discussions and negotiations. It starts with a commissioner making a proposal. Then the panel looks at the proposal and comments on it, before the commissioner works out what he will do. Unless it is vetoed, the precept is set, but if it is vetoed, it does not go to a referendum straight away. Ultimately, that is something that we are all trying to avoid, because of the associated costs of running unnecessary referendums and the risk of re-billing, which is a particular problem with this issue and capping. There is then another opportunity, over 14 days, for the two sides to negotiate and see whether they can come to a more sensible arrangement that works for both of them. Only if that is not possible is a further step taken.
	That step is not about saying, “Secretary of State, tell us what to do. It’s up to you.” It is about saying that what should be done is up to local people. It is up to the commissioner to set one option and the panel to set another, and then the public will decide which they prefer. That is a much more appropriate way of doing things. The panel would act responsibly when it came to cost, with the exception of the independents, who do not have that responsibility and are a piece of undemocratic grit in the system. However, it will be local decision making that makes a difference. Local people should have a say in how their precept should be set and how their policing should be run. That is what I would like to see. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has moved the new clause for discussion, and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.

Chris Bryant: It feels as though I have entered a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, which is where I was yesterday, but I am not going to talk about the Metropolitan police in quite the same way today.
	I sympathise with some of the arguments about localism which have been advanced by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who spoke in favour of the new clause, but I say to them that, although there may be a natural constituency in some police authorities, in many there is not. In the South Wales police area, for instance, it is not easy to conceive of a single constituency of interest. The area does not exist in any other denomination, as it were, and it crosses local authority boundaries, brings together Swansea and Cardiff, which is something extraordinary in itself, and brings the valleys together with two of the three big cities of south Wales, so it would be very difficult to come to a really local idea.
	The new clause is primarily about money, however, so I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I realise that he may not be able to answer this evening, but I hope
	that he will write to me on some of these matters, because they are—in relation to chapter 6, in particular—quite important.
	The Bill partially determines the way in which somebody is elected, but there is a great deal more work to be done on exactly how the electoral system will work—for precisely the reason that I mentioned: the constituencies do not exist. New constituencies are being created, and we need to ensure that, in terms of how elections are managed, there is some consistency within the constituency that we create. I just wonder whether—

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I just gently point out to the hon. Member for Rhondda that it is on the subject of precepts that he will want to focus his remarks?

Chris Bryant: I know I am chancing my arm, Mr Speaker, but I cannot chance it anywhere else on Report, and these issues have not yet been covered.
	Of course, the issue of precepts is fundamentally about money.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I just remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity on Third Reading for him to dilate? Whether that is convenient for him is unknown to me—but it might be appropriate.

Chris Bryant: Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you really want me to dilate at any point.
	I was merely trying to say that, on the matter of money, which is the point at hand, there is a question about how any commissioner would be able to make sure that in advance of future elections there was enough money to be able to pay for the process of explaining to the electorate the supplementary voting system, which will not have been used in many other parts of the country. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to expand on how he will achieve that, on the precise powers that will be available to the Electoral Commission and on when he will bring forward supplementary powers in relation to that.
	Having chanced my arm as far as I think you will allow, Mr Speaker, I surrender to the rest of the debate.

Nick Herbert: In the three minutes that are now available to me, I will have to try to explain why my hon. Friend’s approach is interesting but wrong in relation to how the precept is dealt with.
	I explained in Committee the process following a veto, and the Home Secretary will set that out in regulations. They will require, as the amendment would, that the police and crime commissioner considers the panel’s recommendations and then proposes an amended precept, which must take the panel’s recommendations into account.
	This is where the Bill diverges from the proposed changes, however. Under the regulations that we propose, we say that, if the amended precept is “excessive” under the definition in the Localism Bill, the police and crime commissioner will set the precept but a referendum will be triggered. The panel will not be able to prevent that, but it will be able to propose an alternative precept with accompanying reasons that will have to be published. The public will then have to decide—having both sides of the story.

Julian Huppert: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: I do not have time, I am afraid.
	As we envisage the situation, the public will be able to decide whether to go with the police and crime commissioner’s precept, but only when a precept is excessive. Under the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) proposes, however, the public would decide every time a panel vetoed a precept, unless the commissioner and the panel were able to reach an agreement within two weeks of the vote. We have not gone down that route, despite considering it very carefully, because referendums are very expensive and the police and crime commissioner would have to pay for them on each occasion. If the commissioner’s amended precept is not excessive within the Localism Bill definition, regulations will require the proposal to go again before the panel. Following that, the police and crime commissioner will be able to set the precept without a referendum. He or she must consider the panel’s recommendations. Where the panel has voted again to reject that precept, he or she must publish the panel’s alternative precept and its reasons and must set out in the same document why he or she did not implement the panel’s proposals.
	I accept that the public must have a role in deciding what precept they pay, and under our policy they will have one, or potentially two, opportunities to do this—once when they elect their police and crime commissioner, and again when a police and crime commissioner sets an excessive precept.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this  day ).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question negatived.
	The Speaker  then  put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 5
	 — 
	Police and crime commissioners to issue police and crime plans

Amendments made: 6,page5,line32, at end insert
	‘if, and to the extent that, the plan or variation is different from the draft prepared in accordance with subsection (6)’.
	Amendment 7,page6,line11, after ‘plan’, insert ‘or variation’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 6
	 — 
	Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to issue police and crime plans

Amendments made: 8,page6,line44, at end insert
	‘if, and to the extent that, the plan or variation is different from the draft prepared in accordance with subsection (6)’.
	Amendment 9,page7,line12, leave out ‘and (7) to (8A)’ and insert
	‘(7) to (8A), and (10) to (12)’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 10
	 — 
	Co-operative working

Amendments made: 10,page10,line4, leave out ‘in’ and insert ‘for’.
	Amendment 11,page10,line27, at end insert—
	‘“functions” does not include functions which are exercisable only in relation to Wales and relate to matters in relation to which the Welsh Ministers have functions;’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 18
	 — 
	Delegation of functions by police and crime commissioners

Amendment made: 12,page14,line8, after ‘arrange’, insert ‘under this section’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 19
	 — 
	Delegation of functions by Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Amendment made: 13,page15,line8, leave out from ‘of’ to end of line 9 and insert
	‘the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime which is, in accordance with subsection (1), exercisable by the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 25
	 — 
	Other grants etc under Police Act 1996

Amendment made: 15,page19,line20, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 28
	 — 
	Police and crime panels of local authorities

Amendments made: 16,page20,line22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	‘(1) Each police area, other than the metropolitan police district, is to have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Schedule (Police and crime panels) (police and crime panels).’.
	Amendment 17,page20,line33, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime commissioner’.
	Amendment 18,page21,line12, leave out from ‘commissioner’ to end of line 15 and insert—
	‘(6A) The police and crime panel for a police area in England must send copies of any such reports or recommendations to each local authority whose area falls wholly or partly within the police area.’.
	Amendment 19,page21,line18, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
	‘(8) Schedule (Police and crime panels) (police and crime panels) has effect.
	(9) In this section “local authority” means a county council or a district council.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 29
	 — 
	Power to require attendance and information

Amendment made: 20,page21,line33, at end insert—
	‘( ) Nothing in subsection (1) requires a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the commissioner by that person.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 30
	 — 
	Suspension of police and crime commissioner

Amendment made: 14,page22,line16, leave out ‘of two years or more’ and insert ‘exceeding two years’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 103
	 — 
	Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment made: 21,page64,line38, leave out ‘established under’ and insert ‘referred to in subsection (1) of’.—(Nick Herbert.)

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	‘Police and crime panels
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Type of panel which police area is to have

England
	1 (1) Each police area in England, other than the metropolitan police district, is to have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 2 of this Schedule.
	(2) But the Secretary of State may, by order, provide that any such police area is to have (for as long as the order has effect) a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 3 of this Schedule (instead of a panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 2).
	(3) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to a single-authority police area only if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the relevant local authority has failed to nominate or appoint one or more of its councillors as members of the panel in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9.
	(4) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to a multi-authority police area only if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that all the relevant local authorities have (whether at the same time or at different times) failed to nominate or appoint one or more of their councillors as members of the panel—
	(a) in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 9 (in the case of a police area which covers ten or more local authorities), or
	(b) in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 (in the case of a police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities).
	Wales
	2 Each police area in Wales is to have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 3 of this Schedule.

Part 2
	 — 
	Panels established by local authorities

Establishment and maintenance of panels
	3 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to each police area in England (other than the metropolitan police district), unless an order under paragraph 1(2) has effect in relation to the police area.
	(2) The local authority or local authorities which such a police area covers must—
	(a) establish and maintain a police and crime panel for the police area, and
	(b) make the panel arrangements (see paragraph 23) for the police and crime panel.
	(3) In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements.
	(4) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a police and crime panel is a reference to a panel established and maintained in accordance with this paragraph.
	Membership and status
	4 (1) A police and crime panel for a police area is to consist of the following members—
	(a) the relevant number of persons properly appointed as members of the panel; and
	(b) two members co-opted by the panel.
	(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the “relevant number” is—
	(a) ten (if the police area covers ten or fewer local authorities); or
	(b) the number that is equal to the number of local authorities which the police area covers (if the police area covers eleven or more local authorities).
	(3) A police and crime panel is—
	(a) a committee of the relevant local authority (if it is the panel for a single-authority police area), or
	(b) a joint committee of the relevant local authorities (if it is the panel for a multi-authority police area).
	(4) A police and crime panel may not exercise any functions other than those conferred by this Act.
	Persons properly appointed as members of panels
	5 (1) In this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a person properly appointed as a member of a police and crime panel is a reference to—
	(a) a person nominated by a relevant local authority to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the authority as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9, paragraphs 7 and 9, or paragraphs 8 and 9, or
	(b) a person nominated by the Secretary of State to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraph 10.
	(2) In the case of the police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities, the panel arrangements must make provision as to the relevant local authority or authorities who are to have power to appoint the extra members of the panel (see paragraph 8(3)(b)).
	(3) For that purpose “extra members” means the number of members of the panel produced by this calculation—
	where L is the number of local authorities which the police area covers.
	Single-authority police area: nomination by local authority
	6 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the police and crime panel for a single-authority police area.
	(2) If the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement, the relevant local authority may nominate the appropriate number of its councillors to be members of the police and crime panel.
	(3) A relevant local authority may not make a nomination under this paragraph if, and for as long as, a notice given to the authority by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10(8) is in force.
	(4) In this paragraph—
	“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—
	(a) the full complement; and(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;
	“full complement” means ten members.
	Police area covering ten or more local authorities: nomination by local authority
	7 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the police and crime panel for a police area which covers ten or more local authorities.
	(2) In a case where—
	(a) the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement, and
	(b) there is no member of the panel who was appointed by a particular relevant local authority,
	the authority may nominate one of its councillors to be a member of the police and crime panel.
	(3) A relevant local authority may not make a nomination under this paragraph if, and for as long as, a notice given to the authority by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10(8) is in force.
	(4) In this paragraph, “full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(a).
	Multi-authority police area covering nine or fewer local authorities: nomination by local authority
	8 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities.
	(2) In a case where—
	(a) the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement,
	(b) a particular relevant local authority does not have power under the panel arrangements to appoint an extra member of the panel (see paragraph 5(2)), and
	(c) there is no member of the panel who was appointed by the authority,
	the authority may nominate one of its councillors to be a member of the police and crime panel.
	(3) In a case where—
	(a) the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement,
	(b) a particular relevant local authority has power under the panel arrangements to appoint one or more extra members of the panel (see paragraph 5(2)), and
	(c) the number of members of the panel who are members by virtue of appointment by the authority is less than the authority’s quota of members,
	the authority may nominate the permitted number of its councillors to be members of the police and crime panel.
	(4) A relevant local authority may not make a nomination under this paragraph if, and for as long as, a notice given to the authority by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10(8) is in force.
	(5) In this paragraph, in relation to a police and crime panel and a relevant local authority—
	“full complement” means ten members;
	“permitted number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—
	(a) the authority’s quota of members; and(b) the number of members of the panel who are members by virtue of appointment by the authority;
	“quota of members” means the number of members calculated by adding one to the number of extra members of the panel which the authority has power to appoint under the panel arrangements (see paragraph 5(2)).
	Appointment after nomination by local authority
	9 (1) This paragraph applies where a relevant local authority makes a nomination under paragraph 6, 7 or 8.
	(2) If the nominee accepts the nomination, the relevant local authority may appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.
	(3) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the relevant local authority may nominate another of its councillors to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (2) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under paragraph 6, 7 or 8).
	Failure of local authority to appoint member: nomination and appointment by Secretary of State
	10 (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
	(a) the number of appointed members of a police and crime panel is less than the full complement, and
	(b) a relevant local authority (the “defaulting local authority”)—
	(i) has failed to nominate or appoint one or more of its councillors as members of the panel in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9, paragraphs 7 and 9, or paragraphs 8 and 9, or
	(ii) does not have power to make such a nomination and appointment because of paragraph 6(3), 7(3) or 8(4).
	(2) The Secretary of State must nominate the appropriate number of persons who are councillors of relevant local authorities to be members of the police and crime panel.
	(3) Sub-paragraph (4) or (5) applies in relation to each nomination which the Secretary of State is required to make under sub-paragraph (2).
	(4) If the nominee accepts the nomination, the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.
	(5) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must nominate another person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (4) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under sub-paragraph (2)).
	(6) In complying with this paragraph in relation to the police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area, the Secretary of State must secure (as far as is reasonably practicable) that the fair representation objective is met.
	(7) The “fair representation objective” referred to in sub-paragraph (6) is—
	(a) in the case of a police area which covers ten or more local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has only one of its councillors as a member of the panel;
	(b) in the case of a police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has at least one of its councillors as a member of the panel.
	(8) If the Secretary of State—
	(a) is satisfied that a relevant local authority has failed to nominate or appoint one or more of its councillors as members of the panel as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), and
	(b) is considering whether to exercise, has decided to exercise, or has exercised, the power under this paragraph to make a nomination,
	the Secretary of State may give the authority notice that the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph.
	(9) A notice given under sub-paragraph (8) may be withdrawn by the Secretary of State at any time.
	(10) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(i), it is irrelevant that a relevant local authority which has failed to nominate or appoint a councillor as a member of the panel—
	(a) may have power under any of paragraphs 6 to 9 to make a further nomination; or
	(b) is complying with, or has complied with, the panel arrangements relating to that panel.
	(11) In this paragraph—
	“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—
	(a) the full complement; and(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;
	“full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(a).
	Costs of the panel
	11 (1) This paragraph applies to a multi-authority panel.
	(2) The panel arrangements must make provision about—
	(a) how the relevant local authorities are to meet the costs of the panel; and
	(b) insofar as the provision is necessary, how funds paid (whether by the Secretary of State or otherwise) to meet the costs of the panel are to be paid to, or distributed between, the relevant local authorities.

Part 3
	 — 
	Panels established by the Secretary of State

Establishment and maintenance of panels
	12 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to—
	(a) each police area in Wales, and
	(b) each police area in England in relation to which an order under paragraph 1(2) has effect.
	(2) The Secretary of State must—
	(a) establish and maintain a separate police and crime panel for each police area to which this Part of this Schedule applies, and
	(b) make the panel arrangements (see paragraph 23) for each police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with this paragraph.
	(3) The Secretary of State may make different panel arrangements for different police and crime panels.
	(4) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a police and crime panel is a reference to a panel established and maintained in accordance with this paragraph.
	Membership and status
	13 (1) A police and crime panel for a police area is to consist of the following members—
	(a) the relevant number of persons appointed by the Secretary of State as members of the panel; and
	(b) two members co-opted by the panel.
	(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the “relevant number” is—
	(a) ten (if the police area covers ten or fewer local authorities); or
	(b) the number that is equal to the number of local authorities which the police area covers (if the police area covers eleven or more local authorities).
	(3) A police and crime panel is not a committee or joint committee of any local authority or local authorities.
	Wales: persons appointed by the Secretary of State as members of panels
	14 In this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a person appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of a Welsh police and crime panel is a reference to—
	(a) a person nominated by a relevant local authority to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraph 16(2) to (4)(a), or
	(b) a person nominated by the Secretary of State to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraph 16(4)(b) to (6).
	Wales: Secretary of State to ask local authorities to nominate members of panels
	15 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a Welsh police and crime panel if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the number of appointed members of the panel is less than the full complement.
	(2) In the case of a police and crime panel for a single-authority police area, the Secretary of State must ask the relevant local authority to nominate the appropriate number of the authority’s councillors to be members of the panel.
	(3) In the case of a police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area, the Secretary of State must—
	(a) decide which of the relevant local authorities to ask to make nominations under this sub-paragraph (the “nominating authorities”);
	(b) decide what number of nominations under this sub-paragraph each nominating authority is to be asked to make; and
	(c) ask each nominating authority to nominate that number of the authority’s councillors to be members of the panel.
	(4) In complying with sub-paragraph (3), the Secretary of State must secure—
	(a) that the number of nominations which the nominating authority or authorities are asked to make (when taken together) is equal to the appropriate number; and
	(b) that (as far as is reasonably practicable) the fair representation objective is met.
	(5) The “fair representation objective” referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(b) is—
	(a) in the case of a police area which covers ten or more local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has only one of its councillors as a member of the panel;
	(b) in the case of a police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has at least one of its councillors as a member of the panel.
	(6) In this paragraph—
	“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—
	(a) the full complement; and(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;
	“full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 13(1)(a).
	Wales: consequences of Secretary of State asking local authorities to make nominations
	16 (1) This paragraph applies if, under paragraph 15, the Secretary of State asks a relevant local authority to nominate a councillor to be a member of a Welsh police and crime panel.
	(2) The authority may make the nomination.
	(3) If the authority makes the nomination, and the nominee accepts the nomination, the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the police and crime panel.
	(4) If the authority fails to make the nomination, or the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must either—
	(a) ask the authority to make another nomination (and sub-paragraph (2), and sub-paragraph (3) or this sub-paragraph, apply accordingly, as if the request were made under paragraph 15); or
	(b) nominate a person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel.
	(5) If the nominee accepts a nomination made under sub-paragraph (4)(b), the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.
	(6) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must nominate another person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (5) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under sub-paragraph (4)(b)).
	England: persons appointed by the Secretary of State as members of panels
	17 In this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a person appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of an English police and crime panel is a reference to a person who has been appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel in accordance with paragraph 18.
	England: nomination and appointment of members of panels by Secretary of State
	18 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to an English police and crime panel if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the number of appointed members of the panel is less than the full complement.
	(2) The Secretary of State must nominate the appropriate number of persons who are councillors of relevant local authorities to be members of the police and crime panel.
	(3) Sub-paragraph (4) or (5) applies in relation to each nomination which the Secretary of State is required to make under sub-paragraph (2).
	(4) If the nominee accepts the nomination, the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.
	(5) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must nominate another person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (4) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under sub-paragraph (2)).
	(6) In this paragraph—
	“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—
	(a) the full complement; and(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;
	“full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 13(1)(a).
	Liabilities of panels
	19 (1) All relevant liabilities relating to a police and crime panel are liabilities of the Secretary of State (and accordingly are not liabilities of any member of the panel).
	(2) Any expense incurred by a member of a police and crime panel—
	(a) in respect of a relevant liability, or
	(b) otherwise in the exercise of, or purported exercise of, a function of the panel,
	is to be borne and repaid by the Secretary of State.
	(3) In this paragraph “relevant liability” means a liability which, but for this paragraph, would be a liability of a member of a police and crime panel (whether personally or as a member of that panel) in respect of anything done by—
	(a) that person in the exercise, or purported exercise, of a function of a member of the panel,
	(b) any other member of the panel in the exercise, or purported exercise, of a function of a member of the panel, or
	(c) the panel in the exercise, or purported exercise, of a function of the panel.
	Provision of financial and other resources
	20 (1) The Secretary of State may provide financial and other resources—
	(a) to a police and crime panel in connection with the exercise of the panel’s functions;
	(b) to the members of a police and crime panel in connection with the exercise of their functions; and
	(c) to one or more of the relevant local authorities covered by a police area in connection with the exercise of functions by—
	(i) such an authority in relation to the police and crime panel for that police area,
	(ii) that panel, or
	(iii) the members of that panel.
	(2) The Secretary of State may provide financial or other resources under sub-paragraph (1) subject to conditions.
	(3) In the case of resources provided under sub-paragraph (1)(c), the conditions which may be imposed include conditions requiring a relevant local authority to pass resources to, or share resources with, another relevant local authority.
	(4) The power under this paragraph to provide resources is in addition to the duty under paragraph 19(2).

Part 4
	 — 
	General provisions

Restrictions on membership of panel
	21 The police and crime commissioner for a police area may not be a member of the police and crime panel for the area.
	22 A person may not be a co-opted member of the police and crime panel for a police area if the person is any of the following—
	(a) a member of the staff of the police and crime commissioner for that police area;
	(b) a member of the civilian staff of the police force for that police area;
	(c) a member of a local authority which is covered by that police area;
	(d) a Member of Parliament;
	(e) a member of the National Assembly for Wales;
	(f) a member of the Scottish Parliament;
	(g) a member of the European Parliament.
	Panel arrangements
	23 (1) Panel arrangements are arrangements for the establishment and maintenance of a police and crime panel.
	(2) Panel arrangements must make provision about the co-option of, and holding of office by, the two co-opted members of the police and crime panel.
	(3) Panel arrangements must include provision about—
	(a) the term of office of appointed members and co-opted members of the panel;
	(b) resignation, and removal, of appointed members and co-opted members of the panel;
	(c) conditions for re-appointment of appointed members and co-opted members of the panel.
	(4) Panel arrangements may not make rules of procedure for the police and crime panel (as to which see paragraph 24).
	(5) Panel arrangements may make different provision for different cases.
	(6) The following persons must comply with the panel arrangements relating to a police and crime panel—
	(a) each relevant local authority;
	(b) each member of the police and crime panel.
	Rules of procedure
	24 (1) A police and crime panel must make rules of procedure for the panel.
	(2) A police and crime panel’s rules of procedure must make provision about the appointment, resignation and removal of a person to chair the panel.
	(3) The police and crime panel’s rules of procedure may, in particular, make provision about—
	(a) the method of making decisions, and
	(b) the formation of sub-committees.
	(4) A sub-committee of a police and crime panel may not co-opt members.
	(5) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 26.
	Voting by members
	25 All members of a police and crime panel may vote in proceedings of the panel.
	Exercise of special functions
	26 (1) The special functions of a police and crime panel may not be discharged by a committee or sub-committee of the panel.
	(2) In this paragraph “special functions” means the functions conferred on a police and crime panel by—
	(a) section 28(2) (scrutiny of police and crime plan);
	(b) section 28(3) (scrutiny of annual report);
	(c) Schedule 5 (issuing precepts); and
	(d) Part 1 of Schedule 8 (scrutiny of appointment of chief constables).
	Allowances
	27 The panel arrangements may make provision about the payment of allowances to members of the police and crime panel.
	Promotion of, and support, for panels
	28 The panel arrangements must make provision for—
	(a) the role of the police and crime panel to be promoted;
	(b) administrative and other support to be given to the police and crime panel and its members;
	(c) support and guidance to be given to—
	(i) members of relevant local authorities,
	(ii) members of the executives (if any) of relevant local authorities, and
	(iii) officers of relevant local authorities,
	in relation to the functions of the police and crime panel.
	Validity of proceedings
	29 The validity of the proceedings of a police and crime panel is not affected by a vacancy in the membership of the panel or a defect in appointment.
	Duty to produce balanced panel
	30 (1) In exercising functions under Part 2 or 3 of this Schedule, a relevant local authority must secure that (as far as is reasonably practicable) the balanced appointment objective is met.
	(2) In exercising functions under Part 2 or 3 of this Schedule, the Secretary of State must secure that (as far as is reasonably practicable) the balanced appointment objective is met.
	(3) The “balanced appointment objective” referred to in this paragraph is the objective that the appointed members of a police and crime panel (when taken together)—
	(a) represent all parts of the relevant police area;
	(b) represent the political make-up of—
	(i) the relevant local authority, or
	(ii) the relevant local authorities (when taken together);
	(c) have the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the police and crime panel to discharge its functions effectively.
	31 In co-opting members, a police and crime panel must secure that (as far as is reasonably practicable), the appointed and co-opted members of the panel (when taken together) have the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the police and crime panel to discharge its functions effectively.
	Application of other legislation
	32 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—
	(a) modify a relevant enactment in its application to Part 2 panels, or
	(b) provide for a relevant enactment not to apply to Part 2 panels.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for a relevant enactment to apply (with or without modifications) to Part 3 panels.
	(3) In this paragraph—
	“Part 2 panels” means police and crime panels established and maintained under Part 2 of this Schedule (which are committees or joint committees of the relevant local authority or authorities);
	“Part 3 panels” means police and crime panels established and maintained under Part 3 of this Schedule (which are not committees or joint committees of any local authority);
	“relevant enactment” means an enactment which applies to a committee of a local authority or a joint committee of local authorities.
	Regulations about notifications
	33 The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about notifications to be given by persons in relation to—
	(a) their compliance, or failure to comply, with any duty imposed under this Schedule; or
	(b) their exercise, or failure to exercise, any power conferred under this Schedule.
	Regulations about making nominations
	34 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—
	(a) the making of nominations (including provision about when nominations lapse);
	(b) the notification of nominations (whether to the nominee or any other person); and
	(c) the acceptance and refusal of nominations (including provision about when nominations are to be treated as having been accepted or refused).
	(2) In this paragraph “nomination” means a nomination by a relevant local authority or the Secretary of State of a person to be a member of a police and crime panel.
	Regulations about making appointments
	35 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—
	(a) the making of appointments;
	(b) the notification of appointments (whether to the appointee or any other person); and
	(c) the termination of appointments (including provision about when appointments are to be treated as having been terminated).
	(2) In this paragraph “appointment” means—
	(a) the appointment by a relevant local authority or the Secretary of State of a person as a member of a police and crime panel, and
	(b) the co-option by a police and crime panel of a person to be a member of the panel.
	Regulations about modification etc of functions
	36 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for modifying, suspending, transferring or removing relevant functions insofar as they are exercisable in relation to police and crime panels in respect of which the Secretary of State is, or has been, required to nominate members.
	(2) In this paragraph, “relevant functions” means functions conferred on relevant local authorities or the Secretary of State by this Schedule.
	Interpretation
	37 (1) A reference in this Schedule to a police area which covers a local authority is a reference to a police area whose area is the same as, or includes, all or part of the local authority’s area.
	(2) The circumstances in which a relevant local authority may be taken, for the purposes of this Schedule, to have failed to nominate or appoint a councillor as a member of a police and crime panel include circumstances where a councillor who is nominated and appointed fails to remain as a member of the panel for such a period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable.
	(3) In this Schedule—
	“appointed member” means a member of a police and crime panel by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(a) or 13(1)(a);
	“co-opted member” means a member of a police and crime panel by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(b) or 13(1)(b);
	“councillor”, in relation to local authority, means a person who—
	(a) is a member of the local authority, or(b) is the elected mayor of a mayor and cabinet executive (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000) of a relevant local authority;
	“English police and crime panel” means a police and crime panel for a police area in England;
	“local authority” means—
	(a) in relation to England, a county council or a district council;(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;
	“multi-authority police area” means a police area which covers two or more local authorities;
	“panel arrangements” means the arrangements referred to in paragraph 23;
	“relevant local authority”, in relation to a police area, means a local authority which the police area covers;
	“single-authority police area” means a police area which covers only one local authority;
	“Welsh police and crime panel” means a police and crime panel for a police area in Wales.’.—(Nick Herbert.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the schedule be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 306, Noes 222.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New schedule 1 added to the Bill.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Police and crime commissioners

Amendments made: 31,page104,line13 leave out ‘qualified’.
	Amendment 32,page104,line18, leave out from beginning to ‘person’ in line 19 and insert
	‘A person may not be appointed under sub-paragraph (1) to act as chief finance officer unless the’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Chief constables

Amendments made: 33, page 106, line 2, leave out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘chief constable’.
	Amendment 34, page 106, line 18, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.
	Amendment 35,page106,line21, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.
	Amendment 36,page106,line23, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.
	Amendment 37, page 106, line 24, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Amendments made: 38,page108,line8, leave out ‘qualified’.
	Amendment 39,page108,line13, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Amendments made: 40,page110,line39, leave out ‘a police and crime commissioner’ and insert
	‘the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis’.
	Amendment 135A,page111,line5, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.
	Amendment 136,page111,line9, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.
	Amendment 137,page111,line11, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.
	Amendment 138, page 111, line 14, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Police and crime panels

Amendment made: 41,page114,line29, leave out Schedule 6.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Regulations about complaints and conduct matters

Amendment made: 42,page121,line39, leave out ‘these purposes’ and insert
	‘the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 11
	 — 
	Crime and disorder strategies

Amendments made: 43,page133,line24, after ‘areas’, insert ‘in England’.
	Amendment 44,page135,line7, leave out subsection (7).
	Amendment 45,page135,line28, after ‘commissioner’, insert
	‘for a police area in England’.
	Amendment 46,page135,line30, leave out ‘the police area of the commissioner’ and insert ‘that police area’.
	Amendment 47,page136,line2, at end insert ‘, and
	(c) after “section 6 above” insert “, apart from devolved Welsh functions (as defined by section 5(7)),”.’.
	Amendment 48,page136, leave out lines 6 to 17 and insert—
	‘(a) the body is not satisfied that the responsible authorities for the area are carrying out their functions under section 6 in an effective and efficient manner, and
	(b) the body considers it reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances to require a report.’.
	Amendment 49,page136, leave out lines 30 to 32.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 16
	 — 
	Police reform: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 50,page163,line18, at end insert—
	( ) For subsection (2) substitute—
	(2) In issuing a policing plan, the Common Council must have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued under section 37A.”.’.
	Amendment 51,page167,line42, at end insert—
	‘In section 61 (the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom), in subsection (1)(a), for “authorities” substitute “persons and bodies”.’.
	Amendment 52,page211,line5, leave out paragraph 355.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 152
	 — 
	Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions

Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment 2,page100,line10, leave out clause 152.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 154,page100,line17, at end insert—
	‘(a) A specialist unit shall be established within the Crown Prosecution Service, reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so as to ensure minimal delay in decisions relating to arrest warrants issued under this section.
	(b) A specialist unit shall be established within the Metropolitan Police so as to ensure minimal delay in the issuing of arrest warrants under this section.’.

Ann Clwyd: The amendment would remove clause 152. At the outset, I should like to say that whatever one’s views on the changes proposed by the clause, it should not be part of the Bill. It is a justice measure in a Home Office Bill, which is already packed. It would be better if the Government had not crow-barred it into the Bill. However, I am glad that we have an opportunity to debate the measure, although we cannot debate it to the extent that other Members and I would have liked.
	The Government propose to change the law on the procedure for obtaining an arrest warrant in a private prosecution in a universal jurisdiction case. Such cases are concerned with the gravest crimes against humanity: war crimes, torture, genocide and so on. The Government propose that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required before any such arrest warrant can be issued.
	My area of interest is human rights, so it is on the human rights implications of the clause that I shall focus. I object to the clause and the Government’s proposals because they will undermine the UK’s standing on international human rights issues. The current situation in Libya and recent events there and elsewhere in north Africa and the middle east provide a helpful context for
	the debate. For example, if anyone from Gaddafi’s regime—his sons or other senior political and military cohorts—tries to visit the UK at some point in future, they will be affected by this change in the law.
	The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have been strong in their condemnation of Gaddafi, in their calls for him to face justice, and in their support for the International Criminal Court investigation. I agree with them. The best place for Gaddafi to end up is in front of a court on an ICC indictment for crimes against humanity. However, the existence of the ICC does not absolve us of responsibility to ensure that those most serious of crimes can be prosecuted within our jurisdiction.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current situation is the best one, because it keeps the Government away from allegations of political bias in cases in which arrests are sought for a court in this country? Clause 152 will bring every prosecution into the political orbit, where it certainly should not be.

Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head as usual, and I shall develop that argument in a few minutes.
	We still have obligations under the Geneva conventions —they are obligations, and not discretions or permissions —to bring before a court persons suspected of committing the gravest crimes against humanity when we are able to do so. This change in the law will undermine our commitment to those Geneva convention obligations.
	Why, then, are the Government seeking to change the law? The Justice Secretary, yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary, last Thursday, set out clearly in replies to questions in the Chamber the reasons why the Government are seeking to do so. The first reason that they gave was that it is too easy to obtain an arrest warrant. They suggested that anyone could turn up on a frivolous pretext, spin a yarn to the court and walk away with an arrest warrant—put a penny in the slot and out comes a warrant! I cannot believe that that argument has carried any weight with anyone at all.

Julian Huppert: I share the right hon. Lady’s deep interest in human rights and I absolutely accept her point. May I, however, go back to what she was saying earlier about the arrest process? Does not she accept that a prosecution is more important than an arrest, and that whether or not the clause is passed, the Attorney-General’s consent will still be required for a prosecution, making the issue a political one? Are we not having the wrong debate? Should not we be debating the Attorney-General’s role in private prosecutions?

Ann Clwyd: That is certainly a subject for future debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said in Committee:
	“I am not persuaded that there is a need for change…I do not think that a sufficiently strong case has been made about why the current system is not working.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 17 February 2011; c. 684.]
	I hope that he still holds that view.

Elfyn Llwyd: On the question of granting a warrant on the basis of flimsy evidence, is the right hon. Lady aware that, according to the Director of Public Prosecutions, there have been only 10 applications in the past 10 years, of which only two were granted?

Ann Clwyd: That was to have been my very next point. It is amazing that in the past 10 years, there have been just two successful applications for arrest warrants, and that they were then either withdrawn or not acted on.

Michael Ellis: Does not that 80% failure rate indicate that people have been making frivolous and vexatious applications? Also, is it not right that proper evidence should be tendered to a court or other authority before the issue of an arrest warrant that could have international ramifications?

Ann Clwyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the facts. The fact that there have been 10 applications and that only two were granted means that the judges who currently implement this legislation are absolutely spot on. They do not take frivolous applications—quite the contrary: they are only too careful. They are experienced judges, not ordinary magistrates. The current system works comparatively well, and no one can point to any frivolous applications.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend might be aware that a document issued by the Liberal Democrats in June last year stated:
	“The issue of the arrest warrant for a war crime is decided only by specialist legally qualified magistrates such as the most senior district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. They are well qualified to decide whether the high threshold of evidence, liability and jurisdiction has been met and that no immunity applies…The removal of the right of public prosecution in such cases would have the effect of turning our country into a safe transit point for war criminals, torturers and those guilty of genocide from all over the world.”

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Indeed, all the human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Redress and Justice are opposed to this change in the law.
	In Committee, the Minister conceded:
	“The problem is not that large numbers of warrants are being issued—the Government are aware of only two”.––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 17 February 2011; c. 682.]
	It is incredible that the Government think that that is too many, and that there should be rather fewer. The fact that two arrest warrants have been granted in 10 years should be a matter of concern, not because it is too many but because it is too few.

Louise Ellman: I agree with my right hon. Friend that war crimes and crimes against humanity are horrific, but does she really think it just that an arrest warrant was issued against Tzipi Livni who was here seriously to negotiate peace between Israelis and Palestinians and to save lives?

Ann Clwyd: Well, the other reason the Government gave for the change in the law is, I suppose, the real reason, in respect of which my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: it is the Tzipi Livni case. The Government,
	as the Foreign Secretary and the Justice Secretary explained, are changing the law because of an Israeli politician. Changing the law at the request of a foreign Government does not, I would argue, enhance our ability to act as an international peace broker. It does exactly the opposite by undermining our credibility to speak as a country that takes human rights seriously.

Andrew Love: Is it not incongruous that at the same time as we continue to speak here about human rights, justice and democracy in the middle east, we also have to move this particular amendment?

Ann Clwyd: Indeed. I think it sends the wrong signal at this particular time. I hope I can persuade many more hon. Members of the force of my argument.
	In today’s The Guardian online, there is an article, stating that coalition criminal justice plans
	“make a mockery of universal jurisdiction”.
	It continues:
	“Giving suspects from ‘protected countries’ immunity from war crimes arrests would turn the UK into a safe haven for suspects”.
	That was written by an eminent human rights lawyer, Daniel Machower. He goes on to say:
	“A legal case for changing the current judicial process, through the senior district judge, has not been made out and parliament is entitled to reject the proposed change on that basis alone.”
	I have my own views on the Tzipi Livni case. I happen to regard the crimes documented in the Goldstone report as pretty damning. The very strength of the current system, however, is that it does not matter what my view is: it is a decision taken by a court without political considerations and on the basis of the evidence alone. That is the system that the Government are going to undermine.

Matthew Offord: The right hon. Lady claims that accusations against an individual are mentioned in the Goldstone report, but she also talks about people having immunity in this country. What evidential basis does she have for presuming to believe that to be true?

Ann Clwyd: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—and I doubt whether he does either.
	The Opposition Front-Bench team has tabled an amendment proposing to create new units in the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police. As the Minister observed in Committee, however, these units already exist for war crimes investigations. The fact that they already exist, and have done for some time, helps to show us what will happen when the Director of Public Prosecutions becomes a gatekeeper for all universal jurisdiction cases: nothing. Yes, nothing will happen. As we learned from a report in The Guardian last month and the work of the all-party group on the prevention of genocide, nearly 400 war criminals are believed to be in the UK right now—from Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the Congo. How many prosecutions have there been? One—just one, which is the Zardad case.
	I conclude here because this is the core of my case. The clause is important because it communicates our attitude towards crimes against humanity and towards international justice.

Glenda Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Ann Clwyd: I am concluding; I am sorry.
	It is already too hard to try to bring war criminals to justice. Sadly, there are already too few prosecutions. Let us not make it even harder.

Michael Ellis: It might be useful to inject some legal realism into the debate. At present the law in England and Wales provides for no real evidential threshold, and contains no requirement for a prosecutor to check the credibility of a claim before an arrest warrant is issued. In other words, all that is required is for an individual to go into a police station or the equivalent and make an allegation. That allegation amounts to a prima facie case: the establishment of a prime facie case is the smallest burden that must be borne. Attention-seeking lawyers and campaign groups are being given an opportunity to use the arrest warrant process as a campaign tool. To describe it as providing immunity from prosecution is completely wrong in law, in fact and in degree, and if newspapers have described it thus they are simply wrong.

Julian Huppert: I had much experience of disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman on this matter when the Bill was in Committee. I am now trying to understand how he squares what he is saying with what is actually happening. As we have heard, eight of the mere 10 applications that have been made in 10 years were rejected by the district judge, so the threshold is clearly higher than he is suggesting. Moreover, the clause does nothing about the process of applying for an arrest warrant. People could still apply for one; there would just be a delay before it could be granted.

Michael Ellis: I have a feeling that any Member of Parliament who was subject to the arrest warrant would not be so cavalier as to consider that one or two instances were nothing to worry about. We ought to have a system that applies fairly across the board.
	According to a case study, in March last year the former Vice-President of Bosnia, Ejup Ganic, was arrested at Heathrow airport after Serbian judicial authorities issued an extradition warrant. He was accused of conspiracy to murder 40 Yugoslav People’s Army soldiers in an attack in May 1992. He was subsequently released on bail when the judge remarked that the arrest warrant issued by Serbia had been politically motivated. It was reported that Serbia had yet to produce any real evidence, and that most of its supposed evidence consisted of news articles about the incident. City of Westminster magistrates court blocked Ganic’s extradition in July last year. The presiding judge—who, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), had considerable experience—said that he had been led to believe that the extradition proceedings were
	“brought and being used for political purposes, and as such amount to an abuse of the process of this court”
	Having worked in the criminal justice system for 17 years, I am concerned about the way in which the English legal system is perceived abroad, and the ramifications of some of the incidents that have occurred. For generations, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of peace conferences and other such meetings. The very recent meeting to discuss Libya is a classic example. Circumstances in which people were fearful of entering this country because an extremely low threshold might result in their arrest would be injurious not only to the reputation of the United Kingdom’s legal system, but to the UK’s overall reputation for being a place where peace can be sought and arrangements can be made across the negotiating table. It is not in the interests of world order and international peace for obstructions to be placed in the way of people wishing to enter this country in the way that they have been doing. That does not, of course, apply to only one country; there are several other examples.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the example he gave has nothing to do with private prosecutions being pursued in relation to universal jurisdiction, as it was an extradition matter? Does he not also accept that the court had a very serious threshold and made a very serious judgment, so the process clearly could not be abused for political purposes?

Michael Ellis: It is important to remember that there is the issue of fear of arrest, as well as arrest itself. If someone were to say to anyone in this House, “There’s a prospect of your being arrested should you enter the United States, or France,” they would think very carefully before entering those countries, even if they knew there were no grounds for any allegations and they were entirely innocent. They would not put themselves through the hassle.

Mark Durkan: Can the hon. Gentleman therefore tell us how this clause removes that fear? What signal will people have that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not entertain any such warrant?

Michael Ellis: There seems to be a fear, including in apparently authoritative newspapers, that the provision will grant immunity from prosecution, but all it does is raise the test to the same level as for prosecutions that occur by the thousands per week in this country. Whenever there is an allegation against an individual—whether for murder, shoplifting or anything in between—the Crown Prosecution Service has to consider two tests: whether it is in the public interest to proceed, and whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. No one suggests that the need to consider whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction in those contexts in effect means immunity from prosecution for everybody, and that is all that will be applying here.

Julian Huppert: This brings us on to what I consider to be an important point. Shortly after an arrest, the Attorney-General has to engage with deciding whether to continue with the private prosecution; that is one of the weaknesses of the private prosecution system. Does the hon. Gentleman think that one way in which this
	clause might help with prosecutions is that it would be hard for the Attorney-General to overturn a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, because he could not come up with the claim about the relevant person being just a magistrate? In fact the Attorney-General might find that he was in a weaker position, and it would be easier to proceed with a prosecution.

Michael Ellis: I am not concerned, as my hon. Friend appears to be, about the Attorney-General, because safeguards are built into our system in this country. The Attorney-General has been in a position similar to that envisaged in the Bill for decades, and there is no evidence whatever that that has been a problem in other areas. There are prosecutions in this country that can take place only with the consent of the Attorney-General, and there are other prosecutions that can take place only with the consent of the DPP—I myself have been involved in one or two of them—but no one is suggesting that those cases involve political interference. The reality is that we have to have safeguards against the misuse of a process that has increasingly been employed in highly controversial circumstances and has deeply injurious effects on international relations and British relations. As I have already enunciated, my primary concern is to maintain the good standing of the English legal system.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is deeply confusing me; I hope he did not confuse the courts in the same way when he was practising. We are trying to ensure that people against whom there is prima facie evidence of war crimes or crimes against humanity could be subject to an arrest warrant in this country. The opposite of that is that they would be welcome in this country. I am sure that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it is beginning to sound a bit like it.

Michael Ellis: Of course it is not my intention that war criminals be welcomed to this country. They would be welcome to be prosecuted in this country, and I would support that. The reality is very different, however, and we must ensure that only appropriate people in appropriate circumstances are subject to the heavy penalty of arrest.

Mike Wood: The hon. Gentleman said that this provision had been increasingly used—10 times in the past 10 years—but what evidence has he got to suggest that that is the case?

Michael Ellis: As I have said, there are several offences that are rarely used, but whose presence on the statute book is in itself damaging. Many would argue that although the 42-days provision was hardly ever used, its presence on the statute book would not be uncontroversial. During the 13 years of the Labour Government some 3,000 new criminal offences were created, dozens of which have never been prosecuted yet remain on the statute book. The principle is that one ought to be interested in justice for every individual, rather than having no justice for a handful and thinking that because only a handful are being subjected to injustice we should not worry about it.

Mike Wood: Is the hon. Gentleman agreeing that this provision has not been increasingly used? If so, does he wish to retract what he has just said? Either it has been
	increasingly used or it has not. He said that it has been used 10 times in 10 years, but what was the incidence in the previous 10 years? If he cannot produce that evidence, or if the evidence suggests that this provision has not been increasingly used, perhaps he should withdraw what he has just said.

Michael Ellis: That is a matter of personal opinion. As I have indicated, one would have to make a comparison with the previous 10 years. The universal jurisdiction law is a common law matter and has, therefore, presumably been available for decades. If it has been used only 10 times in the past 10 years, one would have to go back to see what happened during the previous 10 years. Perhaps one would discover that during that period it had never been used once. If that is the case, it has been increasingly used; I would just posit that.
	I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members would like to speak, so may I conclude by saying that Canada is not considered to be a country that is in any way permissive towards war crimes, yet it has adopted a tack similar to the proposed British solution? Although boasting a very broad piece of legislation implementing universal jurisdiction, Canada’s law requires that all claims based on universal jurisdiction first be personally approved by its Attorney-General or deputy Attorney-General before they can be introduced in any court. So I would posit that to Labour Members, and say that if Canada has done this and is doing it—

Yasmin Qureshi: rose —

Michael Ellis: I am going to finish now. If Canada has done this and is doing it, I see no reason why England and Wales should not do it as well.

Vernon Coaker: I start by saying that we support the Government on the clause. It is strangely placed in this Bill, as it deals with a foreign policy and justice issue, but our foreign policy team has made its support clear. The provision is essential to maintain universal jurisdiction: it allows for the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity anywhere in the world. We also support continuing with private prosecutions.
	We do not believe that there should be any weakening in the standards for and likelihood of prosecution, as that would be completely wrong. However, there is a difference between the standards and procedures for arrest and the standards and procedures for prosecution. For prosecution, a higher standard of proof and the agreement of the Attorney-General are needed, whereas for arrest they are not. That means that there could be cases where people are arrested but there is no likelihood of prosecution, because the evidence is not there and the Attorney-General will not give agreement, perhaps because of campaigning on international issues in this country. We do not believe that that is appropriate, especially if it deters people from coming to Britain for purposes associated with diplomacy or peace. So it is essential to make the change that the Government propose, which would bring arrest better into line with prosecution but would not affect the chances of a prosecution. However, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is to take these decisions, he will need to do so swiftly. Justice must not be denied by being delayed.

Andrew Love: Is my hon. Friend not concerned about this? We have been told that the DPP will consult the Attorney-General, who can, of course, consult his Cabinet colleagues, but all that will take place behind closed doors. Is there not a real case to answer about the politicisation of the process?

Vernon Coaker: That would have been a real danger with the initial proposal concerning the Attorney-General—my hon. Friend is right to highlight that concern—but when the DPP gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee he was very clear about the thresholds that he would use and the way in which he would conduct his business. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, but the moving of responsibility for this area from the Attorney-General to the DPP is a significant step forward.

Andrew Love: The core of this matter is that the DPP will consult the Attorney-General about the public interest test, and that will be the subject of debate, not the standard of evidence that is available. I return to the same question. As that process will take place behind closed doors, is my hon. Friend not concerned about the politicisation of the process?

Vernon Coaker: The point that I am making is that the DPP’s involvement is to prevent that politicisation, and I was reassured by what he said when he gave evidence to the Committee.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am disappointed in the shadow Minister’s line of argument, because on the question of arraigning someone for crimes against humanity or war crimes, he appears to be saying that there has to be a foreign policy consideration. Surely the decision whether to grant an arrest warrant should be made solely on an evidential basis within international law. It should not be about the perceptions or otherwise of this country, or any other, about foreign policy.

Vernon Coaker: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this, but we are supporting the amendment because this is not only about arrest but about securing prosecution and increasing the likelihood that people can be prosecuted. That is why we support what the Government propose, now that the DPP is involved.

Matthew Offord: I am sure that the shadow Minister will recall the DPP’s evidence to the Committee. He said:
	“We have people who can work around the clock and…enough trained people so that someone is always available.”—[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 126, Q241.]
	That would prevent anyone from fleeing justice in this country.

Vernon Coaker: That is one reason why I said that if the DPP is to take decisions he will need to do so swiftly. As I have said, justice must not be denied by being delayed. We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police should play a strong role, as they have in the past, and must not be hit by the cuts. That is why we tabled amendment 154—to ensure that there is no delay and that wherever possible things are
	dealt with as speedily as possible so that the arrest warrant is granted where appropriate, and we can secure a prosecution.

Julian Huppert: I shall try to be brief because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I have written an article today for “Liberal Democrat Voice” if anyone wants my comments in full—I am sure that hon. Members read it frequently. [ Interruption. ] There is only one version—unlike what happens with the Labour party, whose members seem to give different messages from the back, the front and the side.
	I want to talk about how the system would work, and I urge hon. Members to look at the transcript of the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which was very detailed and very reassuring for those of us who want to make sure that prosecutions go ahead. He made it clear that a team was available, as has just been mentioned, and that it would be ready to act. He understood the issue of timeliness and advanced the idea of using a lower threshold test when there is not enough time to gather evidence. Importantly, he also offered to look in advance at evidence about people who we know should be prosecuted, so as to be ready to go at very short notice—to update what would be required and to be able to go ahead. I was very encouraged by that.

Michael McCann: I am the chair of the all-party group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has made the point that there are more than 400 war criminals in Britain, but is the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) aware that only 29 of them are being pursued by SO15? Does that not demonstrate that we have to separate the wheat from the chaff? Clause 152 will do that: it will get right to the heart of the matter and ensure that we have the evidence base to ensure that war criminals are prosecuted.

Julian Huppert: The role of the police is important. Private prosecutions are the wrong way to go about dealing with such people. If a private prosecution has to be used the state has failed to go ahead—but I would like to see it do so. Private prosecutions are an essential safeguard where the state has failed.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose —

Julian Huppert: I shall give way once more, but then I want to conclude and allow other hon. Members to speak.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the provision has been introduced because of the arrest of one individual? We are changing centuries of our law and tradition for the sake of one person.

Julian Huppert: My position was well summarised by an Opposition Member who spoke earlier. It is a shame that there has been a conflation of two separate issues—one about Israel-Palestine and the whole sordid tale there, and the other a legal debate about what the system ought to be. I wish it were possible to have that discussion.
	The DPP made it clear that he would talk to the Attorney-General, but he said five or six times that there would have to be a very powerful weight in favour of prosecuting, because the crime is one of universal jurisdiction. The public interest would have to be overwhelming. I take comfort from that, because I am concerned that at present the Attorney-General can stop any process going ahead. We do not have a functioning private prosecution system in this country, because the Attorney-General can stop any such prosecutions at any stage. Including the DPP in the provision would make it harder for the Attorney-General to do that, because straight after the DPP—a recognised independent person—said, “Yes, there is a case. This person can be prosecuted,” the Attorney-General would be faced with the prospect of saying, “Actually the DPP is wrong. He doesn’t understand this,” and trying to end it.
	The provision makes prosecutions easier, and it is prosecutions that I am concerned about. I should like to hear more about how the Government will make sure that the police take stronger action. I should like to hear whether they agree with recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, that would weaken the role of Attorney-General in terminating private prosecutions. My remaining concern is about the fact that the DPP may decide not to go ahead because the evidence is too weak. If that is genuinely the case, I do not think that any of us would have a problem with it. However, what worries me are cases in which the DPP does not get round to making a decision because there is a pocket veto. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will report on such cases. If there are a large number of them in which a pocket veto is exercised and no proper decision is made, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and make sure that there is due process.

Lindsay Hoyle: There are two minutes remaining, as I will call the Minister at 6.54 pm.

Gerald Kaufman: We heard one Liberal Democrat voice. May I, in the remaining two minutes, quote the Liberal Democrat document which I have already quoted with regard to Tzipi Livni, who has been mentioned? It says:
	“Tzipi Livni, as Israeli Foreign Minister, was one of those responsible for authorising these attacks”—
	on Gaza, which deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure—
	“and made public statements that appeared to encourage the Israeli military to use disproportionate force and engage in deliberate destruction with no legitimate military objective.”

Julian Huppert: rose —

Gerald Kaufman: I will not give way, because I have only two minutes.
	That is the person whom this lot are trying to acquit of the right even to be prosecuted, and even the issuing of a warrant against her. Her parents were terrorists who murdered great numbers of people. She was an Israeli spy in Paris when the Israelis were murdering people all over Europe and were changing the law to suit this war criminal.

Nick Herbert: The purpose of clause 152 is to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and for the few other offences over which the United Kingdom has asserted universal jurisdiction, can be issued on the application of a private prosecutor.
	Much of the criticism directed at this provision seems to assume that it will end the right of private prosecution for universal jurisdiction cases—a point that appeared to be made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) in his brief speech—and, by extension, that it will damage the principle of universal jurisdiction itself. I emphasise that this is simply not the case. Of course the provision has no effect at all on the ability of the police to investigate, and of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute, alleged offences of universal jurisdiction, but we think it is right that citizens should be able to prosecute these cases, grave as they are. That is why, under our proposal, anyone will still be able to apply to a court to initiate a private prosecution of universal jurisdiction offences by issuing an arrest warrant, where appropriate.
	Our approach, therefore, differs from that proposed by the previous Government, which removed the right to private prosecution of offences alleged to have been committed by a foreign national on foreign soil.

Michael McCann: Does the Minister agree that that will prevent the silliness of people like two arch-atheists trying to bring charges against Pope Benedict when he was making an official state visit to this country?

Nick Herbert: I will deal with some of these points as I go on.
	All that the provision will do is prevent a warrant being issued in cases where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. It would not, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) claimed when she moved her amendment, give immunity to war criminals. That is not the case.
	It has been argued that the consent requirement will lead to delay and allow someone who ought to be prosecuted to leave the country. That is the force of amendment 154. That is a serious point, which the Director of Public Prosecutions addressed when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee. I urge those hon. Members who are concerned about the provision to read, if they have not done so already, the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which I believe will give them a great deal of reassurance as to how he would approach the matter.
	The DPP is well aware that speed is important in dealing with such applications. He explained that the Crown Prosecution Service has suitably trained staff available around the clock, and they stand ready to act immediately in emergency cases. He also had helpful advice for anyone who wants to pursue a crime of universal jurisdiction, which is that they should not wait until the suspect has arrived here, but should engage early with the CPS. He said that they
	“should come to us”—
	that is, the CPS—
	“with whatever evidence they have, and we will undertake to look at it and to advise.”
	It has also been argued, and we have heard this evening, that there is a risk of political interference, given the likelihood that the DPP would consult the Attorney-General.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose —

Nick Herbert: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way; time is short.
	I raised such a risk in questioning the DPP, but he made it clear in his evidence that
	“the decision is the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, taken independently.”
	He added that consultation between the DPP and the Attorney-General, which is regular,
	“acts as no inhibition on the independence that I would bring to the decision. At the end of the day, the decision is mine, it is independent and it is reviewable.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 124-130.]
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, the DPP also said that there are powerful public interest reasons to prosecute in a case that has satisfied the evidential threshold.
	The necessity for the provision has been questioned on two grounds. It is said that the sort of people whom it is designed to safeguard are already covered by immunity. Although this is true of some of the visitors against whom arrest warrants have been sought in the past, it is not true of all. Immunity from criminal jurisdiction applies to certain Ministers, and warrants have been sought against Ministers not covered and those who are not Ministers at all.

John Woodcock: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: I am sorry. I do not have time.
	It is said, too, that few warrants have been issued in universal jurisdiction cases, but the problem lies in the perception that a person who is not a British citizen, does not live here, and indeed has no connection with this country apart from being present here, might be at risk of arrest for a very grave crime where there is no prospect of a viable prosecution. That such an occurrence is rare misses the point. The fact is that people who are, or have been, in leading positions in their countries, with whom the Government would wish to engage in discussions, may be discouraged from coming here. That is our concern. That, in turn, creates a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or interfere with foreign policy.
	Amendment 154 would require special units to be set up in the police and the CPS. The responsibility for investigating universal jurisdiction cases lies with a specialist unit of the Metropolitan police. That unit has the specialist skills and expertise required to conduct those cases, or to decide that an investigation in this jurisdiction is not warranted or feasible. The unit is best placed to evaluate the prospects of being able to protect witnesses or secure their evidence at any trial, identify an individual responsible for the particular conduct to the criminal standard, and deal—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 37, Noes 480.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendment proposed: 154,page100,line17, at end insert—
	‘(a) A specialist unit shall be established within the Crown Prosecution Service, reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so as to ensure minimal delay in decisions relating to arrest warrants issued under this section.
	(b) A specialist unit shall be established within the Metropolitan Police so as to ensure minimal delay in the issuing of arrest warrants under this section.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 179, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Private Members’ Bills may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the last debate, I heard a Member make a comment about another Member in this Chamber. The language that they used certainly was not parliamentary. Will you take some action, or advise me on how I might make a complaint against the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for the comments he made when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) stood to make an intervention?

Lindsay Hoyle: If it had been within earshot of me, obviously I would have dealt with it straight away, but I did not hear anything.

Private Members’ Bills

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform that House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment.

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14(4), Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 9 September 2011, 21 October 2011, 25 November 2011 and 20 January 2012.
	Briefly, the purpose of the motion is to provide extra days for private Members’ business, in line with the Government’s intention to continue this Session until spring 2012. The House will be aware that the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into sitting hours. This is not a debate on the wider issue of process and timings for private Members’ business, which I know the Committee will want to consider.
	The previous Government brought forward no extra days in the first Sessions of previous Parliaments. Indeed, in the final Session of the previous Parliament, the then Leader of the House brought forward a resolution that reduced the number of days for private Members’ business. This House must balance the needs of Members to proceed with private Members’ business with other priorities. The Leader of the House has received Back-Bench representations calling for fewer sitting Fridays, to allow Members to spend more time in their constituencies and to reduce the costs of this place. If the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is agreed and we move to annual spring-to-spring Sessions, we will no longer be faced with the issue of increasing or reducing the number of days.
	I cannot recall any previous Government bringing forward a motion to increase the number of sitting days. In the interests of Back Benchers, particularly those who have been successful in the ballot and wish to see their Bills taken forward, I am very happy to do so today. That is a proportionate response, and I hope the House will support the motion.

Helen Jones: We welcome the motion that the Leader of the House has tabled. This is a greatly extended Session of Parliament, certainly longer than any that I can remember, and it is therefore right that more time should be allowed for Back-Bench business. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, there are other things to consider about how the House deals with private Members’ Bills and how Members can get a fair hearing for them, but they should and will be dealt with at another time.
	Members who table private Members’ Bills deserve the chance for those Bills to receive proper debate and, if they get the necessary support, for them to pass into law. As with all matters before the House, however, we need to ensure that there is a little common sense and, if I may gently say so, a little consideration. Some Members have tabled an amendment to extend the amount of time available for private Members’ Bills, but at the moment a small group of Members are introducing a great many such Bills, which is unhelpful to the House as a whole and to other Members who wish to have their own Bills debated.

Thomas Docherty: Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the same group of Members are the ones who seem to speak the most on a Friday? Perhaps if they spoke slightly less, we might have more time to make progress on Fridays.

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend tempts me into a matter that is one for Mr Speaker and his deputies. I am sure that if hon. Members were filibustering, Mr Speaker would not allow them to do so.
	When I last counted, I think the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) had about 20 Bills on the go, and the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) had 13 each. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of those figures, because my eyes started to glaze over as I went through the list. Frankly, I started to lose the will to live after a while.
	The problem comes down to the fact that Members who are successful in the ballot for private Members’ Bills and wish to introduce legislation should have a fair chance to have their Bills debated and voted on. It is up to them to gather enough support from all parties to get their Bills through, but I say to the hon. Members who have tabled the amendment that that cannot happen if others table so many Bills that they block up the system entirely. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

Philip Hollobone: But that cannot happen in the second part of this extended Session, because there is not going to be a further ballot to allow private Members to take part in the process. Does the hon. Lady agree with the coalition Government that there should not be a further ballot?

Helen Jones: We will wait to see what the Government bring forward, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that his Bills do not have a chance of getting through, one wonders why he tabled them in the first place.
	I hope that we can agree to the motion, so that Members who wish to pursue their private Members’ Bills have a proper opportunity to do so and get a fair hearing from the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Peter Bone to move the amendment.

Peter Bone: I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for having selected my amendment, but having heard what the Deputy Leader of the House said in his powerful speech, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not move the amendment. I should instead like to speak to the main motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarification. The amendment is not moved.

Peter Bone: Ooh, my pager has just pinged.
	I do not know whether to cheer or boo—I have heard some booing tonight. I was slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) wished to carry on the old Executive’s way of controlling private Members’ days and having as few as possible. The enlightened view of the Deputy Leader of the House has encouraged me to support the motion, and I am looking forward to the reform of private Members’ business.

Helen Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman quote back to me anything I said that suggests I want the Executive to have control of private Members’ Bills?

Peter Bone: I cannot—I do not have that sort of memory—but I got the impression that the hon. Lady was saying, “No more extra days,” whereas the previous Government did not support Standing Orders and reduced the number of private Members’ days in a Session, and I shall talk about that briefly later on. That is a key issue. I was hoping she would stand up and say, “Actually, the previous Labour Government got it wrong on that particular point.”
	While I am dealing with the hon. Lady’s remarks, I wanted to talk about the process and the number of Members who have tabled private Members’ Bill. She gave the impression that only three Members had tabled Bills.

Edward Leigh: What does my hon. Friend think would have been the attitude of our late, great friend, Eric Forth to all this? He killed more private Members’ Bills than most of us have had hot breakfasts. Would he have welcomed more days for private Members’ Bills so that more people could indulge their fantasies of adding to the nanny state?

Peter Bone: Eric Forth was perhaps one of the best parliamentarians ever, and I rather think he enjoyed Fridays, so he probably would have liked more.
	I saw a wonderful quote from the Leader of the House, who is not in the Chamber, about how wonderful it was to be selected in the ballot. The main obstacle to getting his Bill on the Order Paper was Eric Forth. Eric will probably be looking down now and saying, “Yeah. Actually, we would like more power for Parliament”—he certainly believed in that—“and therefore more power for Fridays.”

Helen Jones: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to search his memory, because what I remember most about Eric Forth, for whom I had a great deal of admiration, is that he spent most of his time on Fridays killing off private Members’ Bills rather than allowing them to get through—[ Interruption. ] As the Deputy Leader of the House says, he would certainly have enjoyed that.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady has misunderstood my comments. Eric Forth killed off hopeless Labour private Members’ Bills, which he did with great relish. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has now taken on that role, and does it extremely well indeed—no doubt we will see some more Bills killed.
	As legislators, MPs have the opportunity only on a Friday—on a private Members’ Bill day—to put forward their Bills. I should like to counter the view of the hon. Member for Warrington North. She said that only three Members put down private Members’ Bills on the days that we are discussing. In fact, on 9 September, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) will promote the Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing) Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will promote his Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill. On 14 October, my hon. Friend the
	Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will promote the Police Terms and Conditions of Service (Redundancy) Bill.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman will admit to slight support for the case of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). Of the 112 private Members’ Bills before the House, 51—nearly half—are in the names of the hon. Members who are signatories to the amendment. In fact, their legislative programme is about twice the size of the Government’s.

Peter Bone: There are two things wrong with that. First, when Front Benchers agree on something, it is almost certain not to be the correct way forward. Secondly, the alternative Queen’s speech proposed by certain Members had a reason behind it beyond thinking that all those Bills would be debated.
	There are three ways in which private Members’ Bills get debated. Most people think that that happens only through the ballot, but there are also ten-minute rule Bills—they must be debated in the Chamber, when they get an opportunity for Second Reading as a private Member’s Bill—and, of course, presentation Bills. I shall not speak to my amendment, which was not moved because of all the wonderful things that the Deputy Leader of the House said. That is a shame, because I could have quoted what he said in his previous guise as an Opposition spokesman. I will not do that, but he was certainly much more in favour of additional days then than he is now that he is in the Government.

Philip Hollobone: In his intervention, the Deputy Leader of the House seemed to imply that the large number of private Members’ Bills was a bad thing, but actually, it is a very good thing. Parliamentarians are coming forward with proposals for legislation to improve our country and the way of life of our people. Having only four days in the extended programme in which to cram all those Bills is a totally inadequate allocation of parliamentary time.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend puts that argument much better than I could have done.
	I want to go back to the list of Bills, to give the House a flavour of the matter and to show that it is not just three or four Members who are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has not been mentioned so far, has a non-controversial Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill before the House on 21 October. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has his Master’s Degrees (Minimum Standards) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has his Waste Recycling (End Use Register) Bill. I could go on and on, but my point is that these Bills are important to the Members concerned, and they might well be important to their constituents and to the country. They should be heard, and we should not try to restrict debate on them.

William Cash: I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to note that if a Member introduces and prints a presentation Bill, that will demonstrate to the country what they intend to do. My Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for example, would unwind the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and give
	us a proper terrorism law. Does he also appreciate that it is possible to attach signatures to such Bills by tabling an early-day motion? On one occasion, there were as many as 350 signatures attached in that way. That provides ample evidence of the support that a Bill has, even though the Government, by their continuous diminishing of the opportunities for the House to vote on matters that are important to the people at large—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just to cheer him up, I can tell him that if Friday 18 November had been one of the days selected by the Government, there would have been a Referendums Bill introduced by hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which he might have been interested in.
	Sometimes, private Members’ Bills serve the purpose of getting the issue discussed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just demonstrated. They also serve the purpose of getting the matter into law. There are a great deal many difficulties involved in getting a private Member’s Bill through the House, and that is why we should not reduce the number of days available on which to debate them. I shall give the House an example of someone who knew how to do all this. Anthony Steen, the former Member for Totnes, got his Anti-Slavery Day Bill through in the dying days of the last Government when no one was watching what he was up to. That was a very important Bill, and we now celebrate anti-slavery day on 18 October. He has changed the national law, and well done to him, but that was only possible because he used the procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will agree that this is all about knowing the procedures, and that that is what we, as parliamentarians, should be doing.
	I must tell the House why I have a problem with the Deputy Leader of the House. He knows of my admiration for him. We have, in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, two superb parliamentarians, supported by an equally superb Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Selfishly, I hope that they will remain in their posts on 6 May, or whenever the next reshuffle is going to be. We are lucky to have them, and that is why I am slightly disappointed. I cannot remember what the Deputy Leader of the House did before he came to the House. I had the unfortunate problem of being a chartered accountant, and I am therefore used to adding sums up and getting wrong numbers. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been a chartered accountant, too, because he has added the sums up and got a wrong number. Standing Order No. 14(4) clearly states:
	“Private Members’ bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.”
	There is no question about that.
	Now this is where I was a little disappointed by the hon. Member for Warrington North, who I guess is shadow Deputy Leader of the House. In the last Session of the last Government, there were only five private Members’ days. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady mutters—she could have acted properly and intervened—that that is because it was a short Session. She well knows, however, that that is not allowed for in the Standing Orders. We must have 13 days.
	If I were to be generous to the last Labour Government, as I always am, I would say that they quite properly argued that the eight days lost because it was a short Session should be added on to the longer Session that would run from the election in May—not to the November of that year, but to that of the year after. I am happy to accept this argument, which gives us eight more days for a start.
	The Government have given us the 13 days that we would normally have in a Session—there is no argument about that; they are absolutely correct—but there are, of course, the eight that have been missed. That takes us up to 21 already. Because the Government are moving towards a five-year, fixed-term Parliament, which I agree with, and there will be one-year parliamentary Sessions, they have added from November 2011 to May 2012—I reckon that is six months—and assumed that to be half a year. What we need, the Government have said, is half of 13, which seems to come to four.
	Now I reckon half of 13—as an accountant, I have to round up—comes to seven. What we should have, then, are the 13 days the Government have given us, the eight that the previous Government took away, plus the seven for the additional term. If I add seven and 13, I get 20 and if I add eight, I get 28. This is my problem; I think we should have 28 days.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that, on that basis, the amendment—I fully understand the reasons why it was not moved—is a compromise? It might almost be described as the third way.

Peter Bone: As always, I was trying to be helpful and considerate towards the Government. In fact, on the day before yesterday, I had a fine meeting in private with the Leader of the House. After our conversation, he was very clear. I had impressed him so much that he said, “Peter, I have not given you a wink, nod or any indication that the Government have moved from their current position”, which is, of course, exactly what happened. They did not move and they slapped this motion down for tonight.
	Let us get back to the number of days: the 13 plus the seven that we should get under the Government’s own very generous thought, as they are extending the Session. If we add the eight, we get 28 days. I would have accepted 28 days, but I thought, “Let us look at it another way, as accountants always do it twice”. If we are moving towards one-year parliamentary Sessions—from May to May— we are going to have 13 private Members’ Fridays in each year. That is very clear, and that will kick in in May 2012. From May 2010 when this Parliament started—on 18 May, I think—to May 2011 would provide us with 13 days. From May 2011 to May 2012 would provide another 13, making 26. As a chartered accountant, I have done the sums and come up with two different answers. We should have either 26 days or 28 days.
	Unfortunately, when the Deputy Leader of the House came up with his calculations, he came up with 17 days, which is the 13 days that we had to be given, plus the extra four. That is why I wonder whether he is another chartered accountant. He has clearly come up with a completely different result from that most people expected.
	On a serious note, I just think that this was a great opportunity to fix broken promises. I re-read the Prime Minister’s excellent speech of 26 May 2009 when he said he wanted to return powers to Parliament and to Back Benchers. He wanted MPs to be independent. I have taken that to heart and tried to be independent and tried to be a parliamentarian, but the lack of days will restrict my ability to do that.
	I encountered another difficulty today when I received a text message from a constituent saying “If you do not get this amendment through, it will mean that you will be at home more often.” I want to know what the Deputy Leader of the House will say to Mrs Bone about that, because it seems to me that parliamentarians should be here scrutinising the Government. The provision of a private Members’ day once a month—which is what this amounts to—is surely not a problem, and I feel that we have missed an opportunity.
	I know that there are pressures on those in government, I know that the Executive want to control everything, and I understand that that is the old way. I also know that the Prime Minister wants to get away from that, and wants a new politics that will make the House of Commons more important. I did not move my amendment for precisely the reason given by the Deputy Leader of the House: we are moving towards the establishment of a Business of the House Committee, and once we have such a Committee, none of these problems will arise. Everything will be sweetness and light, because Parliament rather than the Executive will allocate the days.
	I was so encouraged by the fact that reform of the private Members’ Bills procedure was being considered seriously that it would have been absurd for me to argue for the provision of 13 extra Fridays. In a few months’ time the Leader of the House will stand at the Dispatch Box, announce that private Members’ Bills will be debated on Wednesday evenings, and say “We have thought about this, and we are going to grant such-and-such a number of extra days.” I see this as a holding debate in anticipation of those reforms. I am encouraged by what has happened today, and I will therefore support the motion in the hope of seeing the reforms introduced a little later.

Philip Hollobone: I am disappointed by what the Government have done tonight. My starting point is to ask why they are doing this at all. Why is this something that we had to let the Government propose? It seems to me that it is a matter for the House—that the House should decide how many days it will devote to private Members’ Bills. I should have thought that a sensible discussion between the Leader of the House’s office and the Backbench Business Committee would have come up with a far more sensible procedure.
	The way in which time is allocated for private Members’ Bills has serious implications for the Backbench Business Committee. Despite the best efforts of the Deputy Leader of the House, who is doing a very good job in the absence of the Leader of the House—I am disappointed that the Leader of the House is not present, given that he told us that this was such an important issue that it had to be debated tonight—we have not heard how he calculated the four extra days. We heard a superb analysis from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough
	(Mr Bone) of how the Government might have arrived at that figure, but that is only the best estimate of my hon. Friend. It is not actually the process employed by the Government, and it is the Government who allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should like to know whether the same process of calculation, which is so obscure and opaque that none of us knows what it is, will be applied to the allocation of Back-Bench business time. The Backbench Business Committee, and, I would hope, all Back Benchers, will be extremely concerned if, in an extended parliamentary Session that is the equivalent of two normal parliamentary years, Back-Bench time is not also equivalent to two full parliamentary years. I should welcome an intervention from the Deputy Leader of the House if he wishes to reassure me that my fears are unfounded, but I fear that we could be running into trouble.
	The other thing that we have not heard from the Deputy Leader of the House is why he has chosen these particular Fridays. What is special about 9 September, 21 October, 25 November and 20 January 2012? Why have they been chosen rather than any of the other Fridays? I would have hoped the Deputy Leader could give us an explanation for that.
	The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) criticised those of us who have tabled quite a large number of private Members’ Bills, and she was generous enough to mention in passing myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. She might find reassurance in the fact that none of the Bills my hon. Friend or I have tabled has reached the top of the list for discussion in this parliamentary Session. Despite our best efforts, we have not had the opportunity of parliamentary time to test our ideas in the Chamber. I do not believe we should be criticised for trying, however; we are doing our best on behalf of our constituents to put forward ideas to improve our nation, and that is entirely laudable.

Richard Bacon: I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), but I, too, was a little disappointed in her statement that Members who thought they had no serious chance of making progress with their Bill should just withdraw it.

Helen Jones: I did not say that.

Richard Bacon: The hon. Lady did say words to that effect, as the record will show. I have paraphrased, but that is essentially the meaning of what she said: that Members who thought they had no serious chance of making progress with Bills should withdraw them. I have been trying for seven years to get food labelling legislation on to the statute book. The fact that I have now had to introduce a Bill four times, and that at each stage people have said I have very little chance of succeeding, has never stopped me trying.

Philip Hollobone: I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts with his private Member’s Bill, and I am delighted that this coming Friday it is listed fourth on the Order Paper. I hope that by some magical intervention it might rise further up the Order Paper and we therefore get a chance to debate it, scrutinise it and vote on it so
	that it can make further progress in this place. I will be making a special effort to be here on Friday to hear my hon. Friend discourse on his Bill, and I know other hon. Friends will also make a special effort. I do not share the view that being here in the Chamber on a Friday is not an appropriate use of a Member of Parliament’s time. I do not know where the idea that every Friday has to be a constituency day came from. I think it is probably a new Labour invention. They tried to persuade Members of Parliament not to turn up to this place so we did not scrutinise the Government and instead let the Executive get away with quite a lot.

William Cash: A number of incredibly important private Members’ Bills have got through in the teeth of Government opposition, such as those on the abolition of capital punishment, the beginnings of the whole of the suffragette movement—that can be read about in the Library—the removal of obstacles preventing women’s enfranchisement, and at present, of course, the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill. The important point is that these Bills were proceeded with in the teeth of Government opposition. That shows why we need to have this time.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend is a far greater expert in parliamentary affairs than I will ever be, and I would willingly give all 13 days in a parliamentary Session to him so he can bring forward sensible legislation to improve the life of our nation. The point he makes is incredibly powerful.
	I am a bear of little brain—I am not, I am afraid, an accountant or a lawyer—but I believe that there are 52 Fridays every year, while 13 Fridays are normally listed for private Members’ legislation. Members therefore have plenty of Fridays to devote to tending to the needs of their constituents. The idea that we have to sacrifice a large proportion of those 13 Fridays to enable more constituency days is misguided. The real reason for this is that the Executive do not want Members bringing forward ideas that the Government do not control, and which, according to them, might possibly get out of control. That is a big mistake.

Jim Shannon: Surely for those people introducing Bills and legislative change the proceedings on Fridays are an extension of representing their constituents here and making the changes they want.

Philip Hollobone: Those wise words from across the Irish sea are extremely welcome, and it would be great if more Members of this House thought that way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender, who stands up and speaks up in this place on behalf of his constituents. He is not frightened of scrutinising legislation, and private Members’ Bills are all part of that parliamentary process. Each of us, no matter what party we represent, is the only person from our constituency entitled to sit in this Chamber and speak up on behalf of our constituents. If we can do that to good effect on those 13 Fridays, more power to our elbow.
	Mention has been made of the late, great Eric Forth, who was an outstanding parliamentarian. One of Eric’s great attributes was that although he did try to scrutinise private Members’ Bills in great detail, he would not have been in favour of reducing the number of parliamentary Fridays. He would have said that it is everyone’s right to try to introduce legislation, but that legislation must be
	scrutinised effectively in this place. We heard a comment earlier about the difficulties of Bills making progress, but the point of this place is not to make progress with Bills: it is to scrutinise them and to allow their passage once they are in a fit and proper shape. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) will demonstrate that to good effect this Friday, given the years of work he has put into honing his legislation in fine detail, and ensuring that every nook and cranny has been explored and every possible difficulty ironed out. If Parliament did not exist, we would not be able to scrutinise legislation in that way, which is why these private Members’ Fridays are so important.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which good ideas in private Members’ Bills reach the statute book, even if they are not successful in reaching it on a Friday through the normal procedure, is by being adopted by the Government and, on occasion, by being fitted into Government Bills?

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend speaks wise words, and I can give him an exact example of what he describes from this very week. I have sponsored the non-controversial Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill. It is one of my Bills that has not reached the Floor of the House, but on Monday the Home Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government were looking into the difficulty of controlling all the yobs in these riots who cover their faces. My Bill would make it an offence for someone to cover their face for the purpose of obscuring their identity. I was pleased to be able to draw that to the Home Secretary’s attention this week, and I very much hope that she will look at my Bill and see how it might be best adapted to meet the Government’s needs. The quickest way to facilitate any advantage to this country in that becoming law would be to introduce the Bill in Government time in this place.
	However, in response to my hon. Friend, may I say that I have a feeling that one reason why the Government are nervous about granting too many private Members’ Fridays is because they have recently had a bad experience in this place with the Daylight Saving Bill? Lots of hon. Members were determined to see that Bill make progress and they gave up their Friday to attend in numbers to ensure that its Second Reading passed, despite Government opposition. Governments do not like getting their fingers burned, which may be one reason why they have, in effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, reduced the number of days to which this House is entitled.
	I am sorry, but the House of Commons does not exist for the convenience of Her Majesty’s Government. The House of Commons exists to hold Her Majesty’s Government to account, because without Parliament the Executive would be able to run amok. On these Benches sit centuries of tradition and scrutiny of the Executive, and the private Members’ Bill process is part of that process of trying to improve the life of our nation. I am disappointed that the Government are being so mean as to allow only four extra private Members’ days, because at the very least the number should be 13. I very much hope that when the House Business Committee is up and running, we will have a proper sensible allocation of days for private Members’ Bills.

David Heath: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and particularly to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for the way in which he approached it. I know from having argued this case with him, often in similar terms, that it is something he cares passionately about and feels should happen.
	I have indicated that a number of things will affect how the House deals with this matter in future, such as the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will bring more certainty and uniformity to parliamentary Sessions. Also, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, there is the prospect of the Backbench Business Committee being evaluated and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals for a business of the House Committee, which will take on the difficult role of making sure that the interests of all Members are properly taken into account, as far as possible, given that some of them compete. That seems proper.
	We also have the Procedure Committee doing something that the Wright Committee suggested but did not have the opportunity to see through. The Wright Committee recognised that there was a problem with how we deal with private Members’ Bills, but it could not come up with a solution in the tight time scale within which it was operating. It therefore suggested that this Parliament should look into the matter, which is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Procedure Committee to look at the process for private Members’ Bills. We look forward eagerly to its report.
	Various things are in motion and we have attempted to respond to the legitimate request for more time. Let me emphasise that this is the first time that a Government have provided more time for private Members’ Bills in a long Session to enable those who have been successful in the ballot and whose Bills are receiving consideration in Committee to make progress if that is the will of the House—it is the House that decides whether that should be the case.

Philip Hollobone: Is the Deputy Leader of the House going to enlighten us as to the calculation by which he arrived at four extra days?

David Heath: It is a matter of balance. It is about looking at the time available and the competing pressures on Members. We came up with a proposal that the House could consider this evening and that proposal is certainly a lot better than anything that has been suggested before. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough accused me of being an accountant, but I really am not.

Peter Bone: You might be a lawyer.

David Heath: Neither am I a lawyer—that is even worse. I was formerly an optician, which is perhaps why I want to focus on the interests of all Members of the House in finding what suits them best.
	Let me deal with an issue that the hon. Member for Kettering raised, which is not directly related to private Members’ Bills but is within the same context—the time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. He said there was some arcane or obscure formula, but there is not: the formula was determined by the Wright
	Committee. The Government were committed to introducing the reforms proposed by the Wright Committee and that is exactly what we did. We have been clear throughout that we will continue to allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee to enable it to do its work and to provide time for Back-Bench Members of the House. We have done so throughout this Session on the basis of about one day a week. We will continue to do exactly what we have done, and most people believe that the allocation is fair and has been used sensibly.

David Nuttall: rose—

David Heath: This is the last time that I shall give way, because I was about to conclude.

David Nuttall: Is there any particular reason why no Fridays have been allocated in February or March 2012?

David Heath: We must remember the interests of Members who have been successful in the ballot and want their legislation to proceed. If they are to succeed in putting something on the statute book, they need time at the end of the process. This is a bicameral Parliament. The Commons must do its work, but another place must scrutinise and revise legislation. It does not make sense to have days for private Members’ Bills abutting the end of the Session, effectively preventing worthy pieces of legislation that have completed scrutiny in the Commons from making further progress. There is a rationale behind the proposals, but that is a matter for the House. I hope that the House will take a view on the matter. I am satisfied that we are making another significant reform to the way in which the House works, again taking time away from the Executive and giving it to Back-Bench Members, which is right, proper and proportionate. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 20 December, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Customs

That the Export Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 580), dated 2 March 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Annual Growth Survey

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 18066/10 and Addenda 1, 2 and 3, relating to the Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU’s comprehensive response to the crisis; supports the Government’s objective of promoting strong, sustainable and balanced economic growth in the EU, with particular regard to EU-level actions aimed at strengthening the single market and trade, enhancing innovation and ensuring smarter EU regulation; welcomes the Commission’s new Annual Growth Survey and its focus on the urgent need for the EU and its Member States to promote economic growth and employment; and urges the EU to ensure that policies align with the need for EU growth and jobs and the need to reduce deficits.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Ordered,
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Care of Cathedrals Measure (HC 868), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Ordered,
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure (HC 870), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Ordered,
	That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Mission and Pastoral Measure (HC 869), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Motion made,
	That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment, as set out in the Budget Report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—(Stephen Crabb.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Development (Luton)

Kelvin Hopkins: I wish to present this petition on behalf of Mr Pat Conway, No-to-North group co-ordinator, of 407 Turnpike drive in my Luton North constituency, and 947 other signatories. The petitioners oppose development to the north of Luton, and have set out the reasons for their objections, believing that there are better alternatives for growth that should be considered instead. The petitioners therefore request that
	the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Luton Borough Council to consider alternative sites for development in and around Luton.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of Luton,
	Declares that the Petitioners strongly object to the Strategic Specific Site Allocation to the North of Luton, to the employment sites at Sundon and beside the A6 and to the proposed Luton Northern Bypass; notes that the Petitioners believe that the location for development is 
	wrong because of the distance to Luton Town Centre, the limitation to increase capacity on the existing roads like the A6 and B579, the impact on schools and other local facilities, its poor location in relation to public transport, the direct impact on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the negative social and economic impacts on the nearby residents and the costs to the taxpayer; and further notes that the Petitioners believe that there are better alternatives for growth instead.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Luton Borough Council to consider alternative sites for development in and around Luton.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000911]

Community Facilities (Flitch Green)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Alan Haselhurst: My first preference was to entitle this debate “The Battle of Flitch Green”, but I was advised against doing so lest a Defence Minister be sent to the Dispatch Box. Nevertheless, a long drawn-out battle has taken place over this community.
	Once upon a time, there was a sugar beet factory on the site of what is now the parish of Flitch Green. That, after it ceased operation, remained a monument on the landscape for quite some time, but in the wake of the Stansted airport inquiry in the 1980s, when sites were being considered for what was termed airport-related housing, the site there became one of those eventually selected and was then given the title Oakwood Park.
	There were 485 houses in the original allocation, although that had been increased to 655 by 2001, and not many bricks had been placed on bricks before a further 160 were added, bringing the total to 815 houses. The original application was granted on appeal in 1998. The provision of social and community facilities was regulated by a section 106 obligation imposed by the planning directorate. There were specified a multipurpose community hall, a village car park, sports pitches, a local equipped area for play and a neighbourhood area for play. These were meant to be provided by the time the 501st house was completed. None was.
	Not part of the obligation, but glowingly described in published literature, no doubt designed to arouse interest in the village, were locations for shops, a surgery and a pub, as well as a landscaped area. The brochures stated:
	“Shops including a small supermarket will be provided to serve the local convenience needs of the new residents”,
	and
	“A pub/restaurant with dedicated parking is proposed for a site overlooking the village green”.
	The brochures went on to say:
	“The village green will be of traditional form surrounded by avenues of large trees . . . and will be of a size to accommodate a cricket pitch and junior soccer pitch and could incorporate a small pavilion.”
	Picture the scene; it might even have come from one of my books! However, there is no need to imagine, because there were colour illustrations in the brochures showing an idyllic village in a rural setting—but before my hon. Friend the Minister is tempted by my words to ring a local estate agent and ask about vacancies, he should beware. If he were to go there, he would not find any of the facilities that I have just described.
	The good news—the only good news—was that the development company, Enodis, has built a community hall and laid out a young children’s playground. The bad news, however, is that the hall was only very recently adopted because, in the words of the planning authority, Uttlesford district council,
	“its appalling construction required a great deal of remedial work to make it acceptable.”
	That is the limit of what has been done at Flitch Green. Not even the roads are of adoptable standard.
	The technique employed by the development company to delay the provision of facilities which, if not legally bound, it was honour-bound to provide, was to put in a
	fresh planning application for additional houses. In those circumstances, it seems that the court would not grant the planning authority an enforcement because it would theoretically be possible that some change might be made in the layout of the plans for the village.
	The application would be refused by the district council, it would go to appeal, it would be turned down on appeal, it would go to judicial review, it would be turned down again, and then the process could recommence. Another planning application could go in. That is how the time has been spent—going to court, going to inquiry, and not providing facilities that people were entitled to expect. Enodis could fairly be called a sort of corporate artful dodger.
	I make allowance for the fact that the contractor, Colonnade, which was to have built the village centre, went into liquidation, which has caused a separate hold-up. The district council has also given approval for another 98 homes, which brings the total to well over 900.
	There are currently three planning applications before the council. First, there is an application for a village centre adjacent to the one that has fallen foul of the collapse of Colonnade. Secondly, there is an application for a sports field. It is not the original sports field, but a much better one that has apparently been given approval by Sport England. Unfortunately, it is not in the parish of Flitch Green, but in the neighbouring parish of Felsted. Thirdly, an application has been made for a further 107 houses. Even if Uttlesford district council were minded to approve the applications, Enodis, on past form, would probably build only the houses, as it would be under no obligation to implement the planning permissions given for the village centre and the sports field.
	There we have it. Some of my constituents have been living in Flitch Green for 10 years, but there is still no sign of the shops, no sign of the pub or restaurant and no sign of the village green. In 2008 a leaflet was circulated by Enodis stating, “We want your views.” Of the then 650 households, only 18% responded—I suspect that most were completely feed up with Enodis by that time. To the question, “Do you want the playing field and large area of play the other side of the Stebbing brook?”, meaning in Felsted, as shown on Enodis’s latest planning application, 121 people said no and 34 said yes. Enodis took the number of abstentions to mean approval, and of course the people of Felsted were not asked. However, when views are expressed by the elected parish councils of Flitch Green and Felsted and the elected district council of Uttlesford, Enodis simply does not listen.
	Enodis’s latest line is to say that there are deficiencies in Uttlesford district council’s five-year housing supply chain and that that should be a factor in determining the application for the final phase of Flitch Green. That would mean another 107 houses on the site that was designated as the sports field in the original master plan. The parish of Flitch Green would like the sports field to be in that original position. It does not approve of the line of Stebbing brook being crossed and the playing fields put on the other side. The parish of Felsted certainly does not approve of that, because it fears that in-filling would follow between the sports field and the present boundary of buildings in the parish.
	What worries me is that, were the Government prepared to go along with the argument being put forward by Enodis, Uttlesford district council would be denied the ability to make its own plans for housing provision for the future. That would certainly flout the opinion of the two parish councils. In those circumstances, one would be tempted to ask, “What price localism then?” I say to the Minister, after this appalling history of manipulation, that Enodis’s disgraceful and contemptuous attitude shows that this is a battle it should not be allowed to win.

Bob Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this debate and on the powerful way in which he has put forward his constituents’ concerns. I am sure that everyone who has listened to the debate will understand why those concerns have been raised.
	The debate raises important issues about the provision of community facilities, the planning process, the operation of section 106 agreements and the means by which planning gain—as it is often referred to—is captured for the benefit of the community. Those are important issues of policy that the Government are determined to address, because often it is the failure to give communities a tangible benefit from development and growth that makes them wary of growth and creates opposition. The Government, on the other hand, are keen to encourage sensible and sustainable development in the right place and with the support of local residents.
	My right hon. Friend naturally and rightly concentrated on the battle of Flitch Green. Earlier, when we were unsure when we would reach this Adjournment debate, I would have been grateful for his having secured the debate on the battle of Flitch Green, so that one of my hon. Friends from the Ministry of Defence would have had to reply. As it is, however, I am glad to be able to respond while it is still today. He has set out in detail the history of the matter and difficulties faced by residents in securing the facilities that they were anticipating as part of a broader development. He pointed out that extant planning applications are under consideration, so he will understand why, owing to the responsibility of my Department and the Secretary of State in the planning process, I cannot comment in detail on the facts of the matter.
	I hope, however, that I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are seized of the policy issues of concern that he raised. It seems that what has happened falls within permitted conduct under the law as it stands. That highlights the fact, however, that there are some deficiencies in the legal framework. Planning obligation is a well established concept and a valuable one. Planning obligations are legal agreements between developers and local authorities, and deliver what is necessary to make a development acceptable in order to obtain planning consent. It is necessary for planning obligations to meet clear policy and statutory tests to be acceptable considerations in the grant of planning permission.
	Fortunately, the data that our Department have show that generally planning obligations deliver many millions of pounds worth of community facilities, affordable
	housing, open spaces, education facilities and other benefits each year. In by far the majority of cases, those obligations are delivered successfully. I am sorry to hear the history of my right hon. Friend’s case, where that does not seem to have happened, but generally they are a useful tool. Of course, there are always exceptions—and they are to be regretted—but I cannot say more about that.
	It is worth setting out the current policy and legal position. Where developers have breached their legal obligations in this regard, the planning authority has powers to take legal action to enforce them, and that is done through the courts. The local authority also has the right to carry out the obligation itself and then recover any expenses incurred from the developer in question. As with any enforcement decision, there are resource implications, and the local authority has to weigh up the best course of action in each case. I am sure that Uttlesford council, as a responsible local authority, has done that.
	We are seeking to revisit the approach through which we capture this planning gain. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, it seems that the situation in his case relates to section 106 agreements, which, although well established, have grown in their extent. It is the Government’s intention to seek an alternative route to capture the majority of planning gain.
	We will give incentives and benefits to communities through the new homes bonus, which will enable councils to benefit financially from granting permissions. However, alongside the new homes bonus, we also intend to retain and reform the community infrastructure levy, which we envisage as the principal vehicle through which planning gain will be secured for the benefit of a community in future. That will enable a local authority to levy a charge in relation to development. We are determined to ensure—this is in the Localism Bill, which is currently before this House—that a meaningful proportion of the levy will be returned to the benefit of the community in the area of the development concerned.
	Compared with the use of section 106-type planning obligations, the community infrastructure levy—or CIL—provides a fairer, and more transparent and predictable mechanism for raising contributions to the sort of facilities that we have been talking about. That will enable section 106 planning obligations to be scaled back and focus more on the site-specific issues that are necessary to enable the development to be granted planning permission, such as providing screening to protect existing houses, access roads to the site and so on. The CIL will remove much of the uncertainty around section 106 contributions. CIL rates will reflect development viability and—importantly in this context—there will be a mandatory up-front charge.
	The developer will pay the CIL, so some of the difficulties with enforcing the obligations that my right hon. Friend mentioned will not arise. Our proposal will be much more straightforward for both the charging
	authority and the developer, because the responsible developer will know the cost of their planning obligation—a cost that can be paid up front—and the local authority will know how much it will receive, will receive it and can then disburse it to the benefit of the community. That will have significant benefits, avoiding both the need to go through the convoluted procedures for enforcing a section 106 agreement and the possibility of applications being made to vary it, which can take a long time and be the subject of lengthy disputes—I am not entirely sure whether that occurred in this case, but it seems that it may have done.
	The situation in my right hon. Friend’s constituency has to be dealt with under the law as it stands, so I regret that that legislation, which is currently before the House, may be of only limited comfort. However, I hope that it is of some comfort for the future that lessons can be drawn from how section 106 agreements work. I would not want anyone to think that section 106 agreements do not work properly in the majority of cases. However, we believe that a revised CIL will be a fairer and better means of dealing with the problem and will, I hope, give residents greater certainty that if they move into a development, the sort of developments for which they hope will, in fact, take place.
	Finally, my right hon. Friend’s point about the views of the parish council and the neighbourhood is also important, and is a further part of the Government’s reforms—in the Localism Bill and our allied planning reforms—which will involve creating neighbourhood planning. Once those reforms are in place, parish councils in areas such as Flitch Green will be in a position to develop their own neighbourhood plans, which will be able to specify exactly those sorts of issues, such as where playing fields or community facilities might be. Subject to the support of the community in a referendum, that plan will be incorporated into the district council’s local development framework and its development plan. In the future, therefore, communities such as Flitch Green and Felsted will have the real and genuine ability to control where development goes.
	I am afraid that that is a promise of better things for the future, rather than something through which I can offer immediate comfort to my right hon. Friend, but I know that he has done his constituents a great service by raising this issue in his trenchant and characteristically eloquent way. I hope that he will at least be able to say to them that the Government are taking steps for the future to make sure that planning obligations are delivered in an appropriate, effective and transparent way that is to the general benefit of communities. I am grateful to him for raising those issues with me, and I am sure that the House will appreciate it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Local Government

That the draft Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 297, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.